Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Gifts of European Art from The Ahmanson Foundation, Volume 2: French Painting and Sculpture"

See other formats




Foundation 







LACMA 


Collections 


Gifts of European 
Art from 
The Ahmanson 
Foundation 

VOLUME 2 

French Painting and Sculpture 

Edited by Leah Lehmbeck 

By J. Patrice Marandel and Amy Walsh, 

with additional contributions by Anne-Lise Desmas, 

Leah Lehmbeck, and Mary Levkoff 


Los Angeles County Museum of Art 





Gifts of European Art from The Ahmanson Foundation, 
Volumes 1,2, and 3 

Published by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

5905 Wilshire Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 90036 

(323) 857-6000 

www.lacma.org 

Copyright © 2019 Los Angeles County Museum of Art 


For LACMA 

publisher Lisa Gabrielle Mark 
editor AnnLucke 

rights and reproductions Carly Ann Rustebakke 
designers Lorraine Wild and Xiaoqing Wang 
with Tommy Huang, Green Dragon Office 
proofreader Fronia W. Simpson 
indexer David Luljak 
production Amie Cooper, The Actualizers 

This book is typeset in Lexicon N02 

Published in 2019 by Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

Printed and bound in the United States of America 


COVER 

Jean-Simeon Chardin, Soap Bubbles, 

probably after 1739 (detail, cat. 20). Oil 
on canvas, 23% x 28% in. (60 x 73 cm). 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
(M.79.251) 

PAGE IO 

Alcxandre-F rancois Desportes, 
DogPointingPartridges in a Landscape, 

1719 (detail, cat. 22). Oil on canvas, 

44 x 56% in. (112 x 144 cm). Gift of The 
Ahmanson Foundation (AC1993.39.1) 

page 17 

Claude Lorrain (Claude Gellee), 
Pastoral Landscape with a Mill, 1634 
(detail, cat. 2). Oil on canvas, 23 x 32 % in. 
(59 x 82.8 cm). Gift of The Ahmanson 
Foundation (M.86.259) 


page 53 

Georges de La Tour, The Magdalen 
with theSmokingFlame, ca. 1635-37 
(detail, cat. 5). Oil on canvas, 

46 346 x 36 34 in. (117 x 91.8 cm). 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
(M.77.73) 

page 55 

Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours, The Reunion 
of Cupid and Psyche, 1793 (detail, cat. 42). 
Oil on panel, 13% x 15% in. (35.2 x 40 cm). 
The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
(M.2000.179.30) 

page 137 

Jerome-Martin Langlois, 

The Marriage of the Virgin, 1833 (detail, 
cat. 61). Oil on paper mounted on canvas, 
13 34 x 18 34 in. (33.7 x 46.4 cm). 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
(M.2000.179.37) 


page 220 

Simon Vouet, Virginia da Vezzo, 
the Artist’s Wife, as the Magdalen, ca. 1627 
(detail, cat. 12). Oil on canvas, 40 x 31 in. 
(101.6 x 78.74 cm). Gift of The Ahmanson 
Foundation (M.83.201) 


CONTENTS 


Director’s Foreword Michael Govan 
Editor’s Acknowledgments Leah Lehmbeck 
Note to the Reader 


6 


A Model Partnership Leah Lehmbeck 


8 

9 

11 


CATALOGUE 


Seventeenth Century cats. 1-12 

16 

Eighteenth Century cats. 13-49 

54 

Nineteenth Century cats. 50-67 

136 

Appendix 

178 

List of Artists 

202 

Bibliography 

203 

Index 

214 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

218 

Board of Trustees, 2019 


Photograph Credits 

219 














T his comprehensive catalogue traces an extraordinarily unique relationship between 
The Ahmanson Foundation and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art across 
nearly five decades of the former bestowing masterpieces of European painting and 
sculpture on the latter. Unlike other collection catalogues, this is not the story of a 
private collection. It does not chronicle the biographical details of a collector, his or her artistic 
idiosyncrasies, or travails with the art market. Instead, it tells the story of the needs of a 
museum and the Foundation, which led the charge in meeting them. With the exception of a 
select group of gifts from Howard F. Ahmanson’s private collection, for forty-five years The 
Ahmanson Foundation has graciously followed the museum’s suggestions in determining 
what exactly it needed to transform itself into one of the most impressive of its kind in the 
world and provided the means to make those acquisitions possible. The fruits of this relation¬ 
ship are tangible, and the generosity, understanding, and, above all, trust, are by all accounts 
exceptional. 

The story begins back when Los Angeles was a burgeoning new metropolis in the postwar 
era and the men and women who made their fortunes here recognized the value of cultural 
institutions for their local citizenry. Among these city leaders was Howard F. Ahmanson, a 
hardworking young man from Omaha, who came to Los Angeles at age nineteen after the 
death of his father to finish college at the University of Southern California. With a keen 
business sense, he first sold fire insurance during the Depression. After predicting the coming 
boom in housing fueled by the educated middle class of the postwar period, he established a 
finance company to help effectuate home ownership. At the heart of his enterprises was Home 
Savings and Loan, or “Home” as it was known, a modest moniker that belied the fact that it 
was the largest financier of house purchases in the country just two years after it was founded. 

The growth of Ahmanson’s fortune paralleled the rapid rise of Los Angeles. After estab¬ 
lishing The Ahmanson Foundation in 1952, he turned to support the city and its increasing 
population, with a particular focus on major cultural institutions that he, among other city 
leaders, felt effectively established the legitimacy of a metropolis. It was his intention to 
transform a city that, according to the New York Times, was until then “distinguished for 
cultural miserliness.” His lead gift helping to create LACMA’s new campus on Wilshire 
Boulevard in 1965, along with the founding of one of three theaters at the new Music Center 
downtown, reflected this change. His close relationship with county supervisors was a 
tangible manifestation of his belief that local business and government could work together 
to achieve dramatic results and that these partnerships could be a model for the development 
of future cities. 


As he amassed his fortune, Ahmanson also began to grow an art collection made of some 
incredibly significant works. Arguably the greatest of them was Rembrandt’s early and 
magnificent Raising of Lazarus. Bought by Ahmanson in 1959, the painting hung above his 
fireplace for years before becoming one of the first two gifts of art from The Ahmanson 
Foundation to the Department of European Painting and Sculpture in 1972. The first two 
paintings were given in memory of the man who had bought them, who had died of a sudden 
heart attack four years prior; the Foundation was at the time ably led by Robert H. Ahmanson, 
Howard’s nephew. Placed in charge of the Foundation at a critical time of transition, Robert 
professionalized the Foundation in a manner that assured his uncle’s original interests would 
continue to thrive. LACM A was among several cultural institutions that benefited—and still 
benefits—from the Foundation’s generosity, which is also aimed at medical research, educa¬ 
tional reforms, and human services, aiding those with the greatest need. Today, these 
community-minded efforts are upheld under the leadership of Robert’s son, William H. 
Ahmanson, who continues to direct the Foundation’s focus on cultural and public welfare. 

Published in three volumes, the first dedicated to Italian paintings and sculpture, the 
second, to French works of art, and the third, to Dutch, Flemish, and Spanish paintings and 
sculpture, the catalogue is authored by a team of experts who have presented new scholarly 
research on the roughly 135 works of art purchased or gifted by The Ahmanson Foundation to 
the Department of European Painting and Sculpture since 1972 .1 say this deliberately, as the 
Foundation has supported, and continues to support, multiple initiatives at the museum 
above and beyond these gifts. This includes a profound dedication to the departments of 
conservation and science, the research library, and educational projects, recognizing that 
together the strength of these departments necessarily results in the greatest care for and 
understanding of the donated works of art. Nearly all of the gifts were chosen at the sugges¬ 
tion of the museum, with curatorial, directorial, and conservation input. The trust in the 
museum’s expertise by the Foundation is not only a truly unique privilege, it cannot be 
overacknowledged. 

It is my pleasure to present this tremendous catalogue to the Foundation and to our 
public. This is a new model for our permanent collection catalogues, which will be available 
online and free to access, and whose high level of scholarship we hope will inspire scholars, 
both emerging and established. Above all, it is the alliance between the Foundation and 
institution that is to be celebrated in this catalogue, along with a generosity that we hope will 
inspire others and continue to transform the museum for generations to come. 

Michael Govan 

CEO and Wallis Annenberg Director, Los Angeles County Museum of Art 




EDITOR’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


A project of this scope is impossible to accomplish without the contributions and 
support of a team of individuals. As primary authors, J. Patrice Marandel, Chief 
Curator Emeritus, European Painting and Sculpture, and Amy Walsh, former Curator, 
European Painting and Sculpture, were committed to setting a high standard of 
scholarship for each of their entries. By absorbing and synthesizing decades, often centuries, 
of publications, they have placed many of these artworks in a new light. Several additional 
experts joined this core group, and I thank them deeply for their contributions. Anne-Lise 
Desmas, Senior Curator and Department Head of Sculpture and Decorative Arts at the J. Paul 
Getty Museum, Los Angeles; Ellen Dooley, former Assistant Curator, Latin American Art, 
LACMA; Mary Levkoff, Museum Director, Hearst Castle, San Simeon; and Arthur K. Wheelock, 
Jr. (Retired), Curator of Northern Baroque Paintings, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 
all generously shared their expertise, and the catalogue has benefited immensely from their 
contributions. Joseph Fronek, Hannah and Edward Carter Senior Conservator, Paintings, and 
Head of Paintings Conservation at LACMA, has worked with the collection for the past three 
decades. This sustained connection to the paintings not only informs his Technical Reports but 
also has provided all of us with a more meaningful understanding of these special projects. 

Many other colleagues at LACMA have touched this catalogue in one way or another 
over its multiyear process, but there are a few whose efforts have gone above and beyond. Nancy 
Thomas, Senior Deputy Director, Art Administration and Collections, managed the team through 
the first critical phases of the project. Staff at our research library were immensely accommo¬ 
dating and supportive throughout the years, above all, Douglas Cordell, Librarian, and Jessica 
Gambling, Project Archivist. Naoko Takahatake, Curator of Prints and Drawings, provided 
crucial editorial expertise in the final phase of the project. Research assistance was cheerfully 
provided in the final year by David Bardeen, Mellon Graduate Fellow, Lauren Churchwell, 
Mellon Undergraduate Fellow, and Diva Zumaya, Annenberg Curatorial Fellow, all in the 
Department of European Painting and Sculpture. 

Our editor, Ann Lucke, has provided a consistently high level of editorial practice, as well 
as the keen eye required for a catalogue of this scope. We are grateful for her unwavering com¬ 
mitment to this multiyear project, as well as her flexibility in its final stages. Lorraine Wild 
and Xiaoqing Wang at Green Dragon Office designed a book with deep thought and historical 
resonance while maintaining its aesthetic integrity and readability across multiple platforms. 
Fronia W. Simpson’s meticulousness and attention to detail as proofreader have proved invalu¬ 
able. I also wish to thank David Luljak, indexer, Carly Ann Rustebakke, Rights and Reproductions 
Coordinator, and the Photo Services Department led by Peter Brenner, for the beautiful 
photography. Tricia Cochee, Administrative Assistant, Publications, and Melissa Pope, Senior 
Curatorial Administrator, European Painting and Sculpture, have both lent important admin¬ 
istrative support to this project. I am most grateful to our publisher, Lisa Gabrielle Mark. 
Without her profound ability to problem solve, her exceptional editing skills, her patience, 
and, above all, her positive attitude, these three volumes would not have been realized. 

In the end it is The Ahmanson Foundation’s sustained dedication to the European 
Painting and Sculpture Department, the museum, and the citizens of Los Angeles that has 
allowed us the opportunity to present a catalogue of such breadth and depth. It has been 
a privilege to he able to bring this work to completion. 

Leah Lehmbeck 

Curator and Department Head, European Painting and Sculpture 


8 


NOTE TO THE READER 


Provenances, Exhibitions, References, and Technical Reports for each entry appear in the 
appendix. Exhibitions and References are given in abbreviated form, with full listings 
appearing in the bibliography at the conclusion of the book. If there is no exhibition history 
or references, the section has been eliminated. For the provenance, we have adapted the 
format suggested by TheAAM Guide to Provenance Research (Washington, DC, 2001). The prove¬ 
nance is listed in chronological order, beginning with the earliest known owner. Life dates, if 
known, are enclosed in parentheses. Dealers and agents are enclosed in brackets to distinguish 
them from private owners. Auction house sales are enclosed in parentheses. Relationships 
between owners and methods of transactions are indicated in the text and clarified by punctu¬ 
ation: a semicolon is used to indicate that the work passed directly between two owners 
(including dealers, auction houses, and agents), and a period is used to separate two owners if 
a direct transfer did not occur or is not known to have occurred. Uncertain information is 
preceded by the terms “possibly” or “probably.” Technical Reports are given for all paintings, 
with the exception of French oil sketches from the Ciechanowiecki collection. 


ENTRYAUTHORS 

Anne-Lise Desmas [ald] 

Senior Curator and Department Head, Sculpture 
and Decorative Arts, The J. Paul Getty Museum 

Leah Lehmbeck [ll] 

Curator and Department Head, 

European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA 

Mary Levkoff [ml] 

Museum Director, Hearst Castle 

J. Patrice Marandel [jpm] 

Chief Curator Emeritus, Department 
of European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA 

Amy Walsh [aw] 

Former Curator, Department of European Painting 
and Sculpture, LACMA 

Technical Reports by Joseph Fronek, Hannah 
and Edward Carter Senior Conservator, Paintings, 
and Head of the Department of Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA 


9 







A Model 
Partnership 


Leah Lehmbeck 


A fter being asked to lend their opinions on Rembrandt’s early masterpiece. The 

Raising of Lazarus (vol. 3), a group of world-renowned art historians, including Jakob 
Rosenberg, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, John Pope-Hennessy, Rene Huyghe, 
and John Walker, weighed in enthusiastically. Deeming it “excellent,” a 
“Rembrandt of the highest quality” in “magnificent condition,” Rosenberg notably told 
Walker that he had wished he could get it for the National Gallery of Art, where Walker was at 
that time director. 1 Fouryears later the Rembrandt was one of the first gifts from The 
Ahmanson Foundation to enter the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, a 
painting that set the tone for acquisitions over the following forty-five years. These donations 
would generate numerous similar assessments of the museum’s growing collection: in 1977 
Pierre Rosenberg, the longtime director of the Musee du Louvre, exclaimed that LACMA’s 
signature The Magdalen with the SmokingFlame (vol. 2) by Georges de La Tour was “a brilliant 
acquisition,” and twenty years later, the very public auction win of Michael Sweerts’s master- 
work Plague in an Ancient City (vol. 3) inspired dozens of letters of congratulations from 
museum colleagues, one of whom thought its quality and rarity warranted “a fight to the 
death.” Year after year and gift after extraordinary gift. The Ahmanson Foundation’s sus¬ 
tained commitment to LACMA’s collection of European painting and sculpture transformed 
it into one of the best and most respected in the world. 

The Rembrandt was actually one of two paintings to enter the collection as the first gifts 
from The Ahmanson Foundation, donated in 1972. In addition to the Dutch master’s magnifi¬ 
cent early work on panel, a relatively modest collaborative work by David Teniers the Younger 
and Jan Davidsz. de Heem (vol. 3) also joined the collection. Both paintings were exceptional 
because they came from Howard F. Ahmanson’s private collection and were Northern 
European, an area that was a strong collecting focus for Ahmanson’s good friend Edward 
Carter but not for Ahmanson himself. Carter was the founding president of LACMA’s board, 
the man responsible for bringing LACMA to Ahmanson’s attention, and together they were 
the driving force in establishing the museum in its new home on Wilshire Boulevard in 1965. 

Following these two paintings. The Ahmanson Foundation has gone on to support the 
acquisition of more than 130 paintings and sculptures of European art to date, by all measures 
a consistency of support unequaled in other American museums. Notably, nearly all of the 
additions to the collection were suggested by the museum’s curators, who, at the encourage¬ 
ment of the Foundation, have looked to complement LACMA’s existing holdings, reinforce 
areas of strength, and maximize opportunities for growth with an eye toward masterpieces— 
works of art that are powerful, meaningful, and transformative. In addition to supporting 
major acquisitions, the Foundation has nurtured the museum’s efforts to build its collection 
through a parallel commitment to conservation, the research library, and education. This kind 
of collaboration is extremely rare in the museum world: not only is it reflective of the 
Foundation’s position as a supportive entity rather than as an individual with a personal 
agenda, but also it is a result of The Ahmanson Foundation’s sustained commitment to the 


11 


museum. The continued success of the partnership stems from both the museum and 
Foundation sharing the belief that the lives of our communities are improved by being 
exposed to great art. 

The nucleus of the Ahmanson gifts is sixteenth-, seventeenth-, and eighteenth-century 
French and Italian paintings. An early acquisition that exemplifies the taste and staggering 
quality of these gifts and is one of LACMA’s most beloved paintings is Georges de La Tour’s 
TheMagdalen with theSinokingFlame(vo\. 2). Mary Magdalen, who, having renounced all earthly 
temptations, gazes transfixed at the flame of an oil candle: a hushed moment of contempla¬ 
tion balanced by the sharp contrast of light and dark. Universally recognized as the first of 
four versions painted by La Tour—the other examples are held at the Musee du Louvre, Paris, 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 

DC—LACMA’s painting is in the finest condition of the group. After arriving at LACMA, the 
painting received a light cleaning that removed decades of dirt, revealing even subtler shifts in 
illumination and, even more remarkably, a signature, making it one of only eighteen signed 
works in the world by the enigmatic artist. 

Unknown until its rediscovery in the early 1970s, the painting was acquired just five 
years into the relationship with The Ahmanson Foundation. Its acquisition immediately 
elevated the young museum and signaled the extraordinary opportunities the partnership 
was going to allow. The director of the museum at the time. Baroque scholar Kenneth 
Donahue, had identified a weakness in the museum’s seventeenth-century French art hold¬ 
ings and presented the La Tour as a critical step in addressing that shortcoming. After the 
work’s successful acquisition, Donahue guided the Foundation through the first defining 
decade of its partnership with LACMA, and a list of extraordinary acquisitions followed, 
including paintings by Jean-Simeon Chardin, Frans Hals, Fra Bartolomeo, Guido Reni, and 
Paolo Veronese, which remain today some of the museum’s most impressive paintings. In later 
years potential gifts were brought to the Foundation’s attention by curators of the 
Department of European Painting and Sculpture, among them Scott Schaefer, Philip Conishee, 
Peter Fusco, Mary Levkoff, Richard Rand, and, most recently, J. Patrice Marandel, whose 
twenty-five years as curator has profoundly shaped the collection. 

From the first. The Ahmanson Foundation insisted that its gifts come to the museum 
without restrictions, expecting them to be integrated into the rest of the collection; art is not 
about those who advocate for it but about the public to whom it ultimately belongs. A result, 
however, of the high quality of these paintings and sculptures is that they are imbued with an 
appeal recognized well beyond the geographic boundaries of the County of Los Angeles. They 
have been on loan to dozens of prestigious national and international institutions and 
included in exhibitions and scholarly publications in multiple languages worldwide. It is as 
though the paintings come alive when they enter the museum’s collection and the institu¬ 
tional apparatus takes hold. New scholarship is developed, conservation discoveries are made, 
and there are incredible opportunities to write new art histories with these acquisitions at the 
very center. 

Today, the seventeenth century is a defining strength of European art at LACMA. 
Masterworks by Italian, French, Dutch, and Spanish painters and sculptors fill the galleries, 
particularly by artists going to and from Rome during its final peak of religious and cultural 
influence. Many of these are Ahmanson gifts. In addition to La Tour, paintings and sculpture 
by Alessandro Algardi, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Valentin de Boulogne, Pietro da Cortona, 
Domenichino, Hendrik Goltzius, Reni, Michael Sweerts, and Simon Vouet make up this 
distinguished part of LACMA’s collection. 


12 


The two competing artistic styles in early seventeenth-century Rome are typified, on the 
one hand, by Caravaggio and his followers, with their attention to naturalism and dramatic 
lighting, and on the other, by a group of Bolognese painters led by the Carracci with an aim to 
reengage classicism. Both are well represented in the collection, with the stronger examples 
belonging to the Caravaggesque type. The museum’s Caravaggisti are led by La Tour— 
although there is no proof that the artist ever visited Rome—followed by paintings by 
Valentin, Carlo Saraceni, Gerrit van Honthorst, Giovanni Baglioni, and others. Two works by 
Guido Reni represent the classicist mode of painting in Italy during the same period, as do 
paintings by Domenichino and Sweerts. Reni’s colorful capriccio Bacchus and Ariadne (vol. 1), 
gifted in 1979, with its stagelike and conspicuously modern composition, is a modest example, 
whereas his exceptional Portrait of Cardinal Roberto Ubaldini (vol. 1), acquired in 1983, is an 
exclamation of the style championed by the authority of the church. The sitter is positioned 
in his study, seated sturdily upright in the magnificent vestments of his office, before an 
imagined classical landscape. As a diplomat for the church, Ubaldino is presented as a monu¬ 
mental expression of power, formality, and classical refinement. 

The Baroque artist Gian Lorenzo Bernini transcends the art historical dichotomies of the 
seventeenth century and stands as a giant above all. As an architect of considerable signifi¬ 
cance, Bernini transformed Rome through major building projects, most prominent among 
them the embellishments made to the basilica of Saint Peter’s. His greatest achievements, 
however, are his moving portrayals in marble. Most of his masterpieces remain in his adopted 
city, but a recently discovered bust presented an exceptional opportunity to allow the 
museum to acquire a work by the master and to showcase, if modestly, Bernini’s outstanding 
skill. Balancing the restraint of Reni’s portrait, Bernini’s expressive execution of an unidenti¬ 
fied gentleman (vol. 1) simultaneously pronounces the liveliness of the sitter and the artist’s 
technical brilliance. The sitter’s parted lips, the turn of his head, and the opposing sweep of 
his tunic, along with the informality of his unclasped button, offer a strong counterpoint to 
Ubaldini’s rigidity. Given in honor of LACMA’s 50 th anniversary, the acquisition of the 
Bernini made international headlines even before the sculpture came to Los Angeles. Its 
naturalism is a standout in our galleries. 

Measured alongside the profound depth of our Baroque holdings, gifts of Renaissance 
painting and sculpture have been fewer in number. Predominantly acquired in the early years 
of the Foundation’s involvement, they nevertheless remain stunning highlights in our 
galleries. Their smaller number can be attributed to several factors, most notably the fact that 
LACMA began collecting in this area relatively late, and such masterpieces simply have not 
come up on the market as often. Early purchases in 1974 of a magnificent pair of Veronese 
allegories of navigation (vol. 1) anchor the center of our Renaissance gallery, along with other 
Ahmanson gifts by Titian and Giorgio Vasari. 

In 2007 an unexpected opportunity arose to acquire a significant Renaissance work: 
Madonna and Child inaLandscapeby Cima da Conegliano (vol. 1), donated in honor of Robert 
Ahmanson, Howard’s nephew, president of The Ahmanson Foundation after Howard’s death, 
and a lover of Renaissance art. It was Robert who had formalized LACMA as a beneficiary of 
such incredible generosity. An appropriate celebration of Robert’s unwavering dedication to 
the museum, the moving painting presents the beginnings of the Renaissance in Venice. Its 
northern Italian light and palette, its break from the hieratic Gothic style initiated by another 
Ahmanson artist, Jacopo Bellini, as well as its northern European-like landscape are testa¬ 
ment to Cima’s important place in the narrative. Exquisitely painted, LACMA’s version is one 
of several of this subject by the artist in public collections throughout the world, including 
the National Gallery, London, the Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, and the Louvre, Paris. As with 
the La Tour, LACMA’s Madonna and Child in a Landscape has been accepted as one of the earliest 
and strongest versions of the composition. Today, Cima’s painting marks the starting point of 
the public’s visit to the European Painting and Sculpture Galleries. 


13 


The eighteenth-century acquisitions that have materialized through the collaboration 
between the Foundation and the museum are not only numerous, as with works from the 
seventeenth century, they are also remarkably monumental in scale. Stair and Fountain in aPark 
by Hubert Robert (vol. 2), which reveals a contemporary mash-up of imagined Rome and 
eighteenth-century France, in its exceptional size encourages the viewer to enter the fanciful 
scene. By contrast Pompeo Batoni’s accomplished Portrait ofSir Wyndham Knatchbull-Wyndham 
(vol. 1) presents the subject in the contrived pose of the antique sculpture the Apollo Belvedere, 
one element among many that creates a stagelike composition which asks us to look but 
remain at a distance. The wild storm of fabric, body, and hair in Ludovico Mazzanti’s equally 
impressive Death ofLucretia (vol. 1) proves a dramatic counterbalance to this staid depiction 
of an Englishman. 

Corresponding monumental sculpture anchors the French and Italian eighteenth- 
century collection. A pair of life-size allegorical sculptures by Giovanni Baratta (vol. 1) express 
the commitment of the museum to sculpture, which is exceptional in every sense. Throughout 
its history, beginning with legendary art historian William Valentiner’s arrival at the museum 
in 1948, LACMA has made a concerted effort to collect sculpture in addition to painting, and 
our collection now ranks among the best in the world. The Barattas build on that strength, as 
does Jean-Antoine Houdon’s life-size plaster of his masterpiece. Seated Voltaire (vol. 2). The 
aging playwright stood against monarchy, for civil liberties, and for the separation of church 
and state, and his play Brutus, recalling the moment of the installation of the Roman 
Republic, was fundamental to the French Revolution. As a result the Voltaire resonates with the 
subjects of two other Ahmanson gifts, the Mazzanti Death ofLucretia and Ludovico 
Lombardo’s magnificent bronze bust of Junius Brutus (vol. 1), both of which also portray figures 
in the founding story of Rome. Connections between artworks, across time and media, 
illuminate the ability of a foundation with a decades-long commitment to the museum to forge 
these relationships across galleries. 

One of the requisite characteristics of the Ahmanson gifts is that each, at the time of 
its donation, makes the permanent collection stronger, either by addressing a major lacuna or 
by making an area of collecting more complete. It is perhaps the largest Ahmanson gift in 
number—a group of forty-six French oil sketches—that showcases best the integrative nature 
of these donations. 2 Ranging from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century and encompass¬ 
ing different degrees of finish, this group of paintings entered the collection in 2000. It 
includes the magnificent Raising ofLazarusby Jean Jouvenet (vol. 2), Baron Gerard’s fascinating 
political interpretation The 10th of August, 1792 (vol. 2), and Francois Boucher’s ethereal repre¬ 
sentation of the now-destroyed tomb of Pierre Mignard (vol. 2). Together, the oil sketches 
demonstrate a wide range of artistic processes—dramatically, sometimes playfully, revealing 
an artist’s steps from conception to finished work. Individually, they suggest either some¬ 
thing made before—or something made after—a final, finished work. Artistic development 
is as present in these works as memory and commemoration, a generous window into the 
artist’s working methods. As a group the oil sketches bind the European works of art at LACMA 
together. By touching on various edges of the museum’s collection over three centuries, they 
allow the museum to convey multiple, and more revealing, narratives. 

Before the purchase of this collection of French oil sketches by the Foundation for LACMA, 
Patrice Marandel had been involved with it for over three decades, well before he had begun 
his work at the museum. While this was perhaps the longest involvement with an acquisition 
candidate before its eventual addition to the collection, the standard acquisition process is 
nevertheless well considered. Time is needed to deliberate the work of art for historical signifi¬ 
cance, its importance to the museum, and its quality and condition. 


14 


It is, however, exceptions to this process—when a major painting is bought at public 
auction—that reflect the purest testament of the dedication of The Ahmanson Foundation to 
LACMA. Because buying at auctions means prices are not fixed, and the time between identi¬ 
fying an appropriate object for the collection to its purchase is extremely contracted, this 
type of gift reflects the faith of the Foundation in our shared goals. About every ten years, an 
opportunity arises that cannot be missed, and in this manner the museum acquired Hendrik 
Goltzius’s masterpiece DanaePreparing toReceivejupiter (vol. 3), Jacques-Louis David’s rare 
Portrait ofJean-PierreDelahaye (vol. 2), and, arguably the boldest acquisition of the three, 

Michael Sweerts’s Plague in an Ancient City (vol. 3). 

The Flemish artist Sweerts has a much less recognized name than Goltzius or David, and 
he is best known for executing modest, sensitive portrayals of lower-class daily life in 
Baroque Rome. Plague in an Ancient City , however, is neither humble in scale nor reflective of 
mundane happenings in the Eternal City. The exact meaning of the mercurial scene remains 
unknown, as do the circumstances of what was likely to have been its commission, given a com¬ 
position of such expansive scope. What is universally understood is that the painting’s 
handling and unbroken dedication to classicism assure its position as a masterwork. Indeed, 
since the first decade of the nineteenth century, it was thought to be a painting by the 
indomitable Nicolas Poussin. After its acquisition congratulatory letters poured into LACMA 
from curators and institutions celebrating the successful purchase, all of them noting 
appropriately that “The Ahmanson Foundation is to be congratulated for supporting such 
brilliant acquisitions.” 

Every year since 1972, one or more highly accomplished masterwork of painting and 
sculpture has entered LACMA’s collection, gradually transforming the European art galleries 
from those befitting a respectable regional museum to one of international renown. Each of 
these gifts transmits the aims of the Foundation: that these masterpieces were meant to elevate 
the public, the status of the museum, and therefore the city itself. By addressing each one of 
the gifts bought over the last forty-five years, this comprehensive catalogue is intended to share 
the rich history of the collection with a new generation of visitors, scholars, and donors. 

Our relationship with the Foundation is exemplary: this three-volume catalogue is at once 
a testament to that enduring partnership, an opportunity to share the model to inspire 
others in their support and in their reach for masterworks, and, finally, a pronouncement 
of profound gratitude. 


NOTES 

1 Memo dated 12 November 1968. Rembrandt 
object file. Department of European Painting 
and Sculpture, LACMA. 

2 This was the largest number of gifts given at once 
to the Department of European Painting and 
Sculpture. The remarkable donation of the 
Heeramaneck Collection of western and central 
Asian art, made by The Ahmanson Foundation 
in 1981, consisted of more than 1,000 works. 


15 


Seventeenth 

Century 


16 


1 

Boulogne 

18 

2 

Claude Lorrain 

22 

3 

Coypel 

24 

4 

La Hyre 

26 

5 

La Tour 

28 

6 

Moillon 

32 

7 

Parrocel 

34 

8 

Philippe de Champaigne 

36 

9 

Poerson 

38 

io 

Tubyl 

40 

11 

Vouet 

42 

12 

Vouet 

46 


Notes to entries 1-12 

50 









Valentin de Boulogne 

(1591, Coulommiers-1632, Rome) 


Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


A Musical Party, ca. 1623-26 
Oil on canvas, 44 x 57% in. 
(111.5 x 146.5 cm) 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
AC1998.58.1 



18 


Seventeenth Century 


A MusicalParty is one of Valentin de Boulogne’s most 
successful paintings of musicians performing in a 
tavern, a subject popularized by Bartolomeo 
Manfredi (1582-1622) and his followers in Rome. 1 Arriving 
in Rome approximately four years after the death of 
Caravaggio in 1610, 2 the French painter was drawn to the 
work of Manfredi, Caravaggio’s closest follower. Valentin 
would be the most prominent member of a group of mostly 
Northern artists who followed what the German painter 
and author Joachim von Sandrart termed the “Manfredi 
Method,” 3 characterized by “strong contrasts of light and 
shadow that forcefully separate the figures from a dark 
background and flesh tones enhanced by aggressive and 
strong coloration” (fig. 1). 4 Manfredi’s tavern compositions 
became the starting point for Valentin’s most identifiable 
subject. Between 1616 and his death in 1632, Valentin 
painted at least eleven variations of the theme. 

In A Musical Party, Valentin adopts Manfredi’s general 
composition, coarse figure types, and details, such as the 
ancient sarcophagus that serves as the table around which 
the musicians gather. 5 Valentin, however, modifies and 
expands the Italian’s repertoire of types, introducing young 
cavaliers in breastplates and feather berets, drinkers, and 
gypsies. 6 Valentin’s paintings are also distinguished by the 
subtle atmosphere, which suggests depth by shrouding the 
background figures in shadow, illuminating only those 
elements that help to tell the story. The brightest colors are 
reserved for the foreground. A Musical Party’s light raking 
across the informal gathering of five musicians illuminates 
their faces and hands and focuses attention on the lute 
player, who is dressed in a brilliant red doublet and plumed 
hat. Although connected by diagonals suggested by gesture 
and light, as in other paintings of the late 1620s by Valentin, 
the figures appear absorbed by their inner thoughts and 
remain emotionally disconnected, contributing to the 
melancholic tone of the painting. Only the flutist directly 
gazes at another figure, the lute player, who appears to be 
the leader of the group. His colorful costume, plumed hat, 
steel gorget, and sword, typically associated with soldiers of 


fortune, may indicate that he is a member of an aristocratic 
or ecclesiastical household who was allowed to carry a 
sword in Rome during the seventeenth century. 7 

Scenes of half-length figures performing music in 
rustic taverns by Valentin and other followers of Manfredi 
merge sixteenth-century Venetian scenes of musical parties 
with sixteenth-century Flemish paintings and prints of 
figures, often elegantly dressed, drinking or playing music 
in taverns or brothels. Low-life subjects were popularized in 
Rome by members of the Bentveughels, an association of 
Northern artists, who established themselves in the papal 
city in 1623 in opposition to the Academy of Saint Luke and 
produced scenes of Roman street life. A member of the 
notoriously rowdy group, Valentin, who was given the 
name Innamorato, or lover, a reference to a favorite 
character in the popular commedia dell’arte, was no 
stranger to tavern life in Rome. According to his contempo¬ 
rary Giovanni Baglione, Valentin died after falling into the 
freezing water of the Fontana del Babuino as a result of 
overindulging in drink and smoke. 

The appeal of Valentin’s coarse musical party, probably 
painted between 1623 and 1626, 8 over thirty years after 
Caravaggio’s paintings of chamber concerts performed by 
effete young men dressed in pseudo-antique pastoral 
costumes, reflects a different aesthetic but apparently 
appealed to a similarly sophisticated audience, which was 
also attracted to the street scenes of the Bentveughels. 9 
Although some tavern scenes by Valentin and his contempo¬ 
raries can be interpreted as allegories or related to the 
popular theater 10 without any specific iconographic 
references, this work appears to have no extended meaning. 
Painted for a sophisticated collector, it probably was 
intended to be displayed in a room in a Roman private 
residence where actual musical performances took place, 
even though around the time Valentin executed the painting, 
the practice of music and the choice of instruments was 
changing. 11 According to Vincenzo Giustiniani (1564-1637): 
“At this moment in time, musical activity has decreased in 
Rome. It is no longer practiced by gentlemen nor do people 


19 













sing together a libro as they used to in years gone by,” and 
musical performances increasingly were left to professional 
musicians. 12 Giustiniani also reported that although “in the 
past the lute was also much in use... this instrument is 
almost completely abandoned since the theorbo has been 
introduced.” 13 Valentin’s Musical Party thus, apparently 
accurately, represented not only a different class of musi¬ 
cians performing in a tavern, but also socially outmoded 
part music performed on outdated instruments. 

The popularity of the theme of musical gatherings 
indicates that many may have been painted for the market. 
The number of contemporary copies of Valentin’s Musical 
Party suggest, however, that it was well known and thus 
probably in a prominent private collection. The earliest 
record of LACMA’s painting is the 1727 inventory of the 
collection of the due d’Orleans at the Palais-Royal in Paris, 
where La musique hung in the Chambre des Poussins, 


together with another painting by Valentin known as Les 
quatre Ages. 1 * Regent for Louis XV, Philippe II d’Orleans 
(1674-1722) was a passionate amateur of the arts and 
sciences and undoubtedly was attracted by the musical 
subject, as his court played an important role in the renewal 
of interest in Italian music in France. About 1701, approxi¬ 
mately the same time that he acquired Valentin’s La musique, 
the duke began to assemble a unique cadre of Italian 
musicians and Frenchmen trained in the latest Italian 
techniques. 15 While the painting was in the collection of the 
due d’Orleans, a horizontal strip of canvas about five inches 
wide was added to its top. A print made of the painting 
when it was sold from the duke’s collection in 1798 includes 
the additional canvas, and similar additions to 
Caravaggesque paintings reflect the distaste of later 
connoisseurs for their compact compositions. AW 


20 


Seventeenth Century 



Fig-i 


Fig. 1 Bartolomeo Manfredi, Tavern Scene with 
a Lute Player, ca. 1621. Oil on canvas, 51 Yq x 74% in. 
(130 x 190 cm). Private collection 


21 


Boulogne, A Musical Party 



2 

Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


Claude Lorrain 
(Claude Gellee) 

(1604, Champagne-1682, Rome) 


Pastoral Landscape with a Mill, 1634 Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

Oil on canvas, 23 x 32 5 /s in. (59 x 82.8 cm) M.86.259 



22 


Seventeenth Century 


I n Pastoral Landscape with a Mill, dated 1634, Claude Gellee, 
known as Claude Lorrain, or simply Claude, employs 
light and anecdote to create the impression of evening. 
Light emanating from the late afternoon sun at the far left 
behind the massive tree-covered, rocky hill illuminates two 
shepherds resting in the center foreground and strikes the 
left side of a tall, slender tree and the crisply defined rocks, 
plants, and goats in the foreground, casting their right sides 
in shadow. Sunlight reappears in the far distance, backlight¬ 
ing the trees on the dark hill and softly defining the distant 
hills and mountain that appear to be shrouded in the 
evening mist. With cardinals, popes, and kings as patrons, 
the seventeenth-century painter introduced a widely 
admired and influential concept of landscape painting in 
which the major protagonist is the light that animates and 
integrates the composition. This focus influenced landscape 
painters for the following two centuries. 

In addition to atmospheric perspective, Claude 
employs color, reflected light, and the careful placement of 
figures to define space and integrate his composition: the 
brilliant blue of the sky in the upper left is repeated in the 
dress of the shepherdess, and the rust-red jacket of the 
shepherd also defines the mill nestled against the dark 
hillside. Light reflections draw attention to compositional 
elements that subtly guide the viewer into and through the 
landscape. Flickering light suggests water carried by the 
long, wooden sluice to the watermill, while light faintly 
defines the water as it falls over the rocky hillside into the 
millpond. Sunlit goats descending the hill in the left 
foreground direct attention to the donkey laden with a pack 
being led up the path to the mill. Between the vertical 
accents of the piping shepherd and the slender tree, 
reflected light suggests that the water continues toward a 
distant bridge, which runs parallel to the picture plane. 

Two figures crossing the bridge help to establish the 
pictorial depth, while a rider seen from the rear as he moves 
toward the bridge aids in visually linking the foreground to 
the distance. Already in this landscape of the mid-i63os can 
be seen the genesis of Claude’s strategic placement of 
figures and animals to lead the eye through an open 
landscape, which would be adopted by other artists, 
including Jan Both (1610-1652), who returned from Rome to 
the Netherlands in the early 1640s and had a formidable 
influence on Dutch landscape painting. 


The picture is characteristic of Claude’s works from 
the early part of the 1630s, when he was still establishing his 
signature style, 1 influenced by the paintings of Filippo 
Napoletano (1587-1629) and especially such Northern 
artists living in Rome as Paul Bril (1554-1626) and 
Bartholomeus Breenbergh (1598-1657). The massive, dark, 
rocky hill covered with billowing cauliflower-like foliage 
dominates the left half of the composition, while at the 
right Claude provides a dramatic view to the far distance 
shrouded in mist and anchored in the foreground by a tall 
slender tree. The composition of the landscape is closely 
related to another early work by Claude, Italian Landscape 
(Cleveland Museum of Art), but the positioning of the 
figures and the inclusion of the tall tree isolated in the 
foreground distinguish it from the Cleveland painting. The 
small scale of the figures placed in the center foreground 
and of the goats, the watermill sheltered by the hillside at 
the left, and the cascading water recall the compositions of 
Joos de Momper (1564-1635) in such paintings as 
Mountainous Landscape with Figures and a Donkey (n.d.; State 
Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, inv. no. re-448). The 
popular works of the prolific Flemish painter, who was 
closely associated with Paul Bril in Rome in the early 1580s, 
would have been well known to Claude. 

Two shepherds resting in the foreground near their 
flocks help to define the idyllic mood of the landscape, 
recalling the idealized world of the Georgies, in which the 
first-century B. C. Roman poet Virgil expounds the joys of 
the country, emphasizing the calm security of rural life, far 
from battle and the confusion and stress of the cities and 
courts. The Georgies enjoyed a revival and spawned a new 
genre of vernacular literature and interest in landscape 
during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when 
the concept of living in harmony with nature again offered 
an escape from the conflicts of contemporary life. In 
contrast to Virgil’s contemporary poem the Eclogues, which 
describes a Golden Age populated by Arcadian shepherds, 
the Georgies, like Claude’s pastoral paintings, celebrates the 
familiar countryside characterized by peace, harmony, and 
prosperity and populated by contemporary shepherds. The 
idealized shepherds are clean and happy; they relax and 
play music and often dance. Within a few years, Claude 
would introduce biblical and mythological subjects to his 
landscapes, but here the subject is the pastoral mood 
created by the shepherds; the organized, measurable 
landscape; and the light. AW 


23 


















Antoine Coypel 

(1661-1722, Paris) 

Provenance 
References 
Technical report 



The Baptism of Christ, ca. 1690 
Oil on canvas, 53 s /s x 38 7 Ae in. 
(136.2 x 97.6 cm) 



Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.90.154 


24 


Seventeenth Century 


A ntoine Coypel belonged to a dynasty of painters. 

His father, Noel Coypel, was director of the French 
Academy in Rome between 1673 and 1675. From an 
early age, Antoine Coypel was trained in the French 
academic tradition, which privileged the study of antique 
sculpture and the example of the Italian painters of the 
Renaissance, Raphael in particular. Coypel rapidly obtained 
the honors and positions that marked a successful painter’s 
career. By 1681, the artist, having already executed numer¬ 
ous commissions for the church, was received as a member 
of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture and in 1685 
was appointed to the house of Monsieur, brother of the 
king. His association with the Orleans family continued 
with the patronage of Philippe, Monsieur’s son, who 
became regent after the death of Louis XIV in 1715. 

French seventeenth-century painting is often 
considered to be dominated by Nicolas Poussin to the 
exclusion of other artists’ schools. It was, however, far from 
being monolithic, and pupils at the French Academy in 
Rome were encouraged to look at the art of the Venetians, 
Titian among others, precisely because of their propensity 
to favor coloristic effects over disegno, or drawing. 
Theoretical debates on the art of painting were vivid among 
French artists and began at least as early as 1627 with the 
publication of Roger de Piles’s Dialogue sur le colons (Dialogue 
on Colors), a groundbreaking apology for Peter Paul Rubens. 
Coypel was receptive to de Piles’s ideas but without 
abandoning his classical training. Not a fierce defender of 
“Rubenism,” he was nonetheless an artist eager to bring the 
two traditions together. 


In 1690 Coypel was among a group of six artists 
selected by the abbe Charles d’Aligre to provide paintings 
for his newly renovated abbey of Saint Riquier. The Baptism 
of Christ Coypel delivered for the project is still in situ in the 
chapel of Saint John the Baptist. 1 Coypel must have been 
pleased with his composition: he engraved it himself 2 and 
painted this slightly reduced version in LACMA’s collection. 
It was not executed as a commission, as it remained in the 
painter’s estate and was auctioned off in 1753 at the sale of 
his son Charles-Antoine Coypel, where it was bought in by 
his surviving son, Philippe Coypel. It is unknown when it 
entered the collection of La Live de Jully. 

The iconography of the Baptism is well established, 
and Coypel follows almost to the letter its retelling by 
Matthew (3:16-17). God the Father and the dove of the Holy 
Spirit are present, as well as a swarm of angels and cheru¬ 
bim. The chiseled figures of Christ and Saint John suggest, 
however, that Coypel may have had in mind a sculptural 
rendition of the subject, such as perhaps Alessandro 
Algardi’s iconic group of about 1646. Philip Conisbee has 
also noted how Coypel borrowed individual figures from 
Rubens’s Medici cycle, then at the Palais du Luxembourg in 
Paris, and the most available source for artists interested in 
the Flemish artist. 3 The rich colors of Coypel’s painting 
would, in fact, have immediately struck a contemporary 
connoisseur for their originality and their deep harmonies, 
evoking both the Venetians and Rubens and setting the 
painting firmly in the camp of the modernists. JPM 


25 














4 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Laurent de La Hyre 

(1606-1656, Paris) 


The Assumption of the Virgin, ca. 1653 
Oil on canvas, 29 x 20 % in. 

(74.9 x 52.7 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.3 



26 


Seventeenth Century 


L aurent de La Hyre portrayed the Assumption of the 
Virgin at least four times beginning with the 
monumental altarpiece signed and dated 1635 for the 
high altar of the church of the Capuchin convent on the rue 
Saint-Honore, Paris (Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 
M1317). 1 The numerous depictions of the Assumption of the 
Virgin on altarpieces and the cupolas of churches in 
Catholic countries during the late sixteenth and early 
seventeenth centuries reflects the Counter-Reformation 
church’s belief in the persuasive power of images to combat 
the Protestants’ attack on the veneration of saints and the 
cult of Mary. 2 According to Catholic belief, the miraculous 
resurrection and Assumption of the Virgin’s body and soul 
into Heaven was the prime exemplar of restored life after 
death, establishing the efficacy of the Virgin in the salvation 
of humanity and providing the promise that the faithful 
would be rewarded. 3 The fact that the Virgin’s body had not 
decayed but was raised to Heaven whole was proof of her 
perpetual virginity and purity and the basis for her role as a 
powerful advocate for the salvation of sinful mortals. As the 
human mother of Christ and as one to whom those who 
sought his help and compassion appealed for intercession, 
she was the basis for the cult of the Virgin beginning first in 
the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages. Although 
celebrations of the Assumption of the Virgin on the 
fifteenth of August go back to at least the sixth centuty, 
especially in the Eastern Church, the Assumption was not 
officially recognized by the Catholic Church until 1950. 

LACMA’s small painting of the Assumption of the 
Virgin by Laurent de La Hyre is a highly finished, exact 
repetition of a larger painting in the Kunsthistorisches 
Museum, Vienna, of 1653-55 (Gemaldegalerie, inv. no. 613). 4 
The lack of differentiation between the two versions 
indicates that the small painting is not a preliminary oil 
sketch, which typically differs to varying degrees in details 
and composition from the final painting. LACMA’s 
painting, furthermore, has a rectilinear top, indicating that 
it was made after the curved top of the original was changed. 

Seated on clouds, her arms outstretched to the sides, 
her head and eyes turned upward, the Virgin Mary appears 
to ascend quietly into Heaven, assisted by putti. Apparently 
oblivious to her lingering presence above them, the apostles 


inspect her empty tomb and talk quietly among themselves. 
A man kneeling with his back to the viewer in the fore¬ 
ground draws the viewer into the painting. In his right 
hand he holds a rose, an emblem of the Virgin, which he has 
found among her abandoned shrouds in the empty tomb. 

Executed about 1653-55, the paintings at LACMA and 
Vienna display the composition and the subdued tonality 
reflective of the calm classicism of La Hyre’s late work, as 
well as the ideals of the Royal Academy of Painting and 
Sculpture, founded in Paris in 1648. La Hyre was one of the 
twelve anciens (professors) of the academy. His interest in 
the current debate about perspective is displayed by the low 
vantage point that emphasizes the Virgin rising above the 
apostles. The device also focuses attention on a few figures 
in the foreground, relegating subordinate figures whose 
diminished scale suggests spatial depth to the background. 
The somewhat elongated, mannered figures, related to La 
Hyre’s early training, add to the subdued mood of the 
painting. 

La Hyre’s composition manifests the general French 
tendency toward clear, ordered compositions. The image 
also contrasts with the numerous boisterous Baroque 
interpretations of the subject by artists working in Rome, 
especially Annibale Carracci (1592; Pinacoteca Nazionale di 
Bologna, inv. no. 455) and artists influenced by him, 
including Domenichino, and Peter Paul Rubens (1626; 
Antwerp Cathedral), which depict the apostles responding 
dramatically to the sight of the Virgin being swept up into 
the sky. Although comparatively more subdued than these 
earlier examples, the version painted in 1635 by La Hyre, 
who never traveled to Italy, similarly incorporates rhetorical 
gestures and expressions and strong colors to dramatize the 
response of the apostles to the discovery of the Virgin’s 
empty tomb and their awareness of her body rising above 
them. In his later, more classical version of the subject at 
LACMA, which relates to a sketch for the Assumption by 
Simon Vouet (n.d.; Musee du Berry, Bourges), La Hyre shifts 
the position of the tomb so that it projects into rather than 
parallels the composition and draws the attention of the 
quietly perplexed apostles and the viewer to the empty 
tomb, emphasizing the internal, psychological experience 
of the event. 5 AW 


27 






















5 

Georges de La Tour 

(1593, Vic-sur-Seille-1652, Luneville) 

The Magdalen with the Smoking Flame, Gift ofTheAhmanson Foundation 

ca. 1635-37 m - 77-73 


Oil on canvas, 46 Vi6 x 36 Ys in. 

Provenance 


(117 x 91.8 cm) 

Exhibitions 


Signed lower right: G. deLa Tour 

References 



Technical report 





28 


Seventeenth Century 


T he Magdalen with theSmokingFlame, discovered in the 
early 1970s by Gilberte Martin-Mery, then director 
of the Musee des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux, was first 
mentioned in passing in print by both Pierre Rosenberg 
and Jacques Thuillier in 1973, shortly after the retrospec¬ 
tive exhibition devoted to Georges de La Tour at the 
Orangerie des Tuileries of 1972. It was, however, only in 
1977, after its acquisition by the Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art, that it became a permanent part of the 
record on the artist. Since then, the signed painting has 
been universally accepted as a major addition to the 
growing corpus on the painter. 1 It has been featured in 
every monographic La Tour exhibition, as well as several 
thematic ones. It has also generated an abundant literature 
and triggered more questions than it has provided answers 
regarding La Tour himself, the meaning of the work, and 
its place within the artist’s disputed chronology. 

It is well known that La Tour painted several versions 
of the repentant Mary Magdalen. Besides the Los Angeles 
version, three paintings of the same format (vertical) are 
known today: at the Musee du Louvre, Paris, the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (fig. 2), and the 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (fig. 3). To this 
group must be added a horizontal picture of identical 
subject, which surfaced more recently on the art market 
(location unknown). The “Magdalens” constitute the most 
coherent group of nocturnes by Georges de La Tour that 
has come to us. All different, if related in subject matter, 
they have elicited much speculation regarding their 
respective dates, their relationship, and, above all, their 
significance. 

Devotion to the Magdalen was widespread in 
seventeenth-century France, the country where, according 
to the saint’s hagiography, she died. Popular prayers, as 
well as theological treatises, referred to the saint as the 
ultimate example of penance, which in the visual arts 
triggered stark images of the saint in the desert, disheveled 
and contemplating a skull, a crucifix, and a book. 2 Another 
tradition represented the Magdalen at the time of her 
conversion, ecstatic as she renounces her past life and sheds 
her earthly belongings. 3 This opportunity for painters to 
depict feminine beauty while delivering a mild spiritual 
message was obviously not La Tour’s intention. In contrast, 
La Tour’s Magdalens are depicted as having already 
repented, rather than in the act of repenting. In them the 


emotion that accompanied her conversion has given way to 
a calm similar to that of Saint Francis after he received the 
stigmata. Nothing reminds us of the Magdalen’s dissolute 
past: in contrast with La Tour’s own Penitent Magdalen at the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, there are no 
discarded jewels lying on the table or fallen on the ground; 
the billowing sleeve of her blouse strikes one by its simple 
beauty and not as the remnant of vain elegance; her hair, 
properly combed, contrasts with her unkempt appearance 
in traditional iconography. The youth of the sitter herself 
and her childish features belie the fact that she could even 
have had a previous, let alone dissolute, life. Unusual also 
is her outfit which, if not elegant, is properly cut out of 
rough cloth, evoking the stern habits of mendicant orders 
(including, in Franciscan style, the rope around her waist). 
She is sitting considering the instruments of her penance, 
painted with exacting realism: the skull, which in the 
Washington and New York Magdalens rests on a table, is 
here resting on her lap; a roughly hewn cross lies on the 
table as an affirmation of faith; the books have been opened 
and read and have provided food for thought; and a whip, 
used to mortify her own flesh, hangs from the table, a 
terrifying reminder of the physical aspect of spiritual 
exercises. The candle is, in Philip Conisbee’s words, “a glass 
jar of oil, in which a suspended wick is immersed.... The 
bright, steady flame emits curls of black smoke at the top. 
This is not a negligible detail if we are aware of contempo¬ 
rary emblem books such as the Jesuit Father Guilieimus 
Hesius’ Emblemata Sacra: DeFide, Spe, Charitate (1636) 
wherein the smoke at the top of the flame is interpreted as 
signifying renunciation of the mortal life and aspiration 
for the beyond.” 4 

La Tour’s repetition of the subject (as well as its many 
contemporaneous copies) indicates that his original 
representation of the Magdalen resonated with his 
contemporaries, particularly in his native Lorraine. The 
region, where the devotion to the Magdalen had acquired a 
particular currency in the seventeenth century, was a center 
for theologians and members of religious orders to carry 
out lively debates. Two figures of the French Counter- 
Reformation were particularly influential in 
seventeenth-century Lorraine: Cardinal Pierre de Berulle 
(1575-1629), a key figure in French mysticism, whose 
writings were widespread, and, perhaps even more 
important, Pierre Seguin (1558-1636), who led a hermit’s 


29 













life near Nancy. Seguin, who had a large following, pro¬ 
moted extreme forms of devotion, derived in part from the 
works and examples of Spanish mystics he had studied and 
practiced. 5 In this context, a now largely discounted 
suggestion made in 1972 by Helene Adhemar 6 to establish a 
connection between La Tour’s representations of the 
Magdalen and such convents as Notre-Dame du Refuge in 
Nancy, an institution established in 1624 (and approved by 
Pope Urban VIII in 1634) for the rehabilitation of Nancy’s 
fallen women, would merit being cautiously revisited. 

The chronology of La Tour’s Magdalens has been the 
subject of much speculation. All experts agree that the Los 
Angeles composition is the earliest in the group (it is also 
the best conserved of all, making it more legible), datable 
to 1635-37, while its closest other version, the so-called 
TerfF Magdalen at the Musee du Louvre, Paris, has been 
dated as late as 1642-44. In between, the “Fabius Magdalen” 
in Washington has been given a date of about 1635-40, and 
the psychologically very different “Wrightsman Magdalen” 
at the Metropolitan Museum, a date around 1640. 

A document mentioned first by Jacques Thuillier 7 
states that in 1641 the painter was trying to obtain back 
from the widow of Chretien de Nogent a Magdalen, sold 
about 1637-38. In this document the insistence of La Tour 
on the fact that the painting was entirely by his own hand 
reveals the artist’s popularity and the existence of copies 
(some by his son Etienne or other members of his studio) 
already during his lifetime. Olivier Bonfait has suggested 
that the mentioned painting could indeed be the 
Ahmanson Magdalen, the only signed version, which La 
Tour was eager to secure in order to make a copy of it—the 
“TerfF Magdalen,” today at the Louvre. 8 JPM 


30 


Seventeenth Century 



Fig. 2 Georges de La Tour (1593-1652), ThePenitant 
Magdalen, ca. 1640. Oil on canvas, 52 Vi x 40 14 in. 
(133.4 x 102.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, 1978 (inv. 
no. 1978.517) 

Fig. 3 Georges de La Tour (1593-1652), TheRepentant 
Magdalen, ca. 1635-40. Oil on canvas, 44 Yz x 36^4 in. 
(113 x 92.7 cm). National Gallery of Art, Washington, 
DC, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund (inv. no. 1974.52.1) 


31 






Louise Moillon 

(ca. 1610-ca. 1696) 


Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


Basket of Peaches with Plums Gilt of The Ahmanson Foundation 

and Quinces, after 1641 M.2010.53 

Oil on canvas, 26 x 33 14 in. (66 x 84.5 cm) 



32 


Seventeenth Century 


B asket of Peaches with Plums and Quinces is characteristic 
of the carefully balanced still lifes of fruit that 
Louise Moillon painted in Paris throughout her 
career. A basket of peaches appears in the center of a plain 
wood table between a pyramid of three golden quinces 
(pears) in the right foreground and deep purple plums at 
the left. Light cast from the upper left and slightly forward 
draws the disparate elements of the composition out of the 
darkness that shrouds them and defines the individual 
character of each: the firm surface of the plums and quinces 
and the soft, velvety texture of the peaches. Viewed from a 
relatively low vantage point, with the front edge of the table 
placed near the bottom of the picture and cast in shadow, 
the still life appears to sit comfortably on the table. Moillon 
suggests space and volume through the carefully orches¬ 
trated dark leaves extending from the basket of peaches and 
the quince leaves that fall over the edge of the table and 
disappear below the painting’s frame. The curl of the dark 
green quince leaves veined with fine red lines suggests that 
they have begun to dry. A single dry leaf and water drops on 
the table contribute to the impression of transience. 

Moillon’s formal organization of the composition and 
her choice of carefully selected objects, especially the wicker 
basket through which fruit is visible, reveal her familiarity 
with contemporary Flemish still lifes. The daughter of 
Nicolas Moillon (1555-1619), a landscape and portrait 
painter and picture dealer who died when she was ten, 1 
Louise Moillon was raised by her stepfather, the still-life 
painter and art dealer Frangois Gamier (act. 1600-1658), 
whom her mother married in 1620. The comfortable 
bourgeois Protestant family lived in Paris on the Pont 
Notre-Dame, near the Saint-Germain quarter. In this lively 
neighborhood, which was popular among foreign, espe¬ 
cially Protestant, artists from the southern Netherlands, she 
came in contact with the Flemish still-life tradition. 
Moillon, who had begun painting even before the death of 
her father in 1619, produced still lifes for sale by the age of 
twenty, when her mother died. 2 

Moillon’s still lifes bear a resemblance to those signed 
by Frangois Gamier during the 1630s and 1640s, but rather 
than having been influenced by her stepfather, about whom 
little is known, the precocious Moillon may have been the 
dominant artist. 3 Her paintings reflect the probable 


influence of still lifes by the Antwerp painter Jacob van 
Hulsdonck (1582-1647), and her compositions are also 
similar to those of her contemporary Isaac Soreau (1604- 
after 1645), who may have studied with Hulsdonck. 4 As in 
the still lifes of Moillon, those by Hulsdonck and Soreau 
focus on a large, open wicker basket or plate of fruit placed 
in the center of a wood tabletop, the front edge of which is 
brought close to the foreground. Individual flowers, nuts, 
and pieces of fruit appearing to have fallen from the 
arrangements and the droplets of water that lie on the 
tabletop suggest transience. Decorative arabesques formed 
by grape leaves and stems help to unify the otherwise often 
stiff compositions of individually conceived and clearly 
delineated objects. 

Moillon’s debt to Hulsdonck is especially evident in 
her earlier paintings, such as Still Life of Basket ofFruit and 
Bunch of Asparagus, of 1631 (Art Institute of Chicago, inv. 
no. 1948.78), in which peapods and a bunch of asparagus 
balance each other in front of a wicker basket of fruit. Her 
sumptuous shadow and the dramatic light that help to 
define her compositions differ, however, from the light 
palette and clear, even light of the still lifes by Hulsdonck 
and Soreau and suggest the influence of the chiaroscuro 
treatment of light introduced by followers of Caravaggio. 
The variety of color and type of clearly defined fruit in the 
Chicago painting are typical of Moillon’s early paintings. The 
year 1640, the date of her marriage to Etienne Giradot (de 
Chancourt), marked the introduction of her mature style. 5 

Basket of Peaches with Plums and Quinces, which is 
undated, is characteristic of Moillon’s paintings produced 
after 1641. Although the compositional type remains the 
same, in the later paintings the color range is more 
restrained, and light and form are treated more sensually 
than in her earlier works. Only three types of fruit are 
included in LACMA’s painting, and the range of colors is 
limited, producing a sober tonality. 6 While maintaining the 
plasticity of the forms, light suggests an enveloping 
atmosphere in which shadows seem to caress the fruit, 
filling the interstices with soft shadow. Set against a dark 
background, light selectively bathes the forms, softly 
blurring the edges of the peaches, while suggesting the firm 
flesh of the plums, aw 


33 












7 

Joseph Parrocel 

(1646, Brignoles-1704, Paris) 

Scenes from Ancient History( 7 ), 
ca. 1690-95 

Oil on paper laid on canvas. 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.5-6 

Provenance 


6 x 11 5 /s in. (15.2 x 29.5 cm) each 


Exhibitions 


Each signed on back (before relining): 


References 


parrocel pinxit 





34 


Seventeenth Century 


A n eloquent exponent of the Rubenist movement, 

Joseph Parrocel left an impressive body of paintings 
in which descriptions of battles—both historical 
and fictitious—occupy a privileged position. Battle 
painting was an established genre in seventeenth-century 
Europe and was not necessarily intended to celebrate 
military victories. Rather, it was a platform used by painters 
to render action or speed and to show their ability to 
include in a single composition landscape, depictions of 
animals, such as horses in movement, and costumes. It was 
a complete art requiring a multiplicity of talents and as 
such was greatly appreciated. Earlier in the century, the 
genre had been brought to perfection in Italy by Jacques 
Courtois (Giacomo Cortese; 1621-1676), a French painter 
active mostly in Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of 
the grandest aristocratic families. 

Joseph Parrocel belonged to a family that produced 
artists beyond the eighteenth century. Little is known of his 
formative years. About 1667 the painter went to Rome and 
studied with Courtois. A visit to Venice—essential for a 
painter attracted to colorismo —is poorly documented but 
brought expected results. Back in Paris, Parrocel was rapidly 
admitted into the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, 
but his style was at first considered impossible to reconcile 
with the formality required for royal commissions. 
Nonetheless, Parrocel eventually obtained royal support 
and provided impressive and large decorations for public 
buildings and for Versailles. 


Although battle painting remained the genre upon 
which his reputation was established, Parrocel’s large 
oeuvre includes religious, historical, and genre paintings as 
well. The subjects of the two small oil paintings in the 
Ahmanson Collection have thus far not been identified. 
Their horizontal compositions and swift execution are 
typical of the art of Parrocel. The use of color in painting as 
an element equal to design to express feelings and emotions 
was at the center of the most heated critical debates in 
seventeenth-century France. Roger de Piles, the theoreti¬ 
cian who most vehemently defended the supremacy of color 
over drawing, also praised the swift execution and unfin¬ 
ished appearance of some paintings. “Paintings which have 
been completed with extreme exactitude, often appear cold 
and dry,” he wrote in 1677, adding, “Not everything must 
appear in paintings but everything must be there.” 1 De Piles 
had in mind the execution of large and finished paintings, 
as the oil sketch and its aesthetics were not part of his 
discourse. One can wonder if the LACMA paintings are 
precisely oil sketches or small, autonomous paintings 
intended as cabinet pictures, as Parrocel’s technique does 
not vary substantially from oil sketch to finished picture. 
Jerome Delaplanche, author of the monograph on the artist, 
has confirmed a late date for these paintings, suggested by 
this author in previous publications, and ascribes them to 
the years 1690-95. jpm 


35 




















00 

Philippe de Champaigne 

(1602, Brussels-1674, Paris) 

Saint Augustine, ca. 1645 

Oil on canvas, 31 x 24 34 in. 

(78.7 x62.2 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.88.177 

Provenance 




Exhibitions 




References 




Technical report 






36 


Seventeenth Century 


P hilippe de Champaigne, a Flemish painter who spent 
his career in France, portrays Saint Augustine 
holding a flaming heart in his left hand and a quill 
pen in his right. He turns from his writing desk and regards 
a flash of golden light within which is inscribed the word 
Veritas (truth). The brilliant blaze of light appears above a 
lectern on which is a Bible opened to a page inscribed with 
Biblia Sacra. The force of golden lines projecting from the 
light toward Saint Augustine appears to have caused the 
corner of a page of the Bible to bend forward, while flames 
from the burning heart are drawn to the halo of flames 
surrounding the saint’s head. Beneath Saint Augustine’s 
foot are the heretical texts of his contemporary adversaries 
Pelagius (354-420 or 440) and his followers, Caelestius and 
Julian of Eclanum (ca. 386-ca. 455). 1 

Saint Augustine (354-430), one of the four Fathers of 
the Roman Catholic Church, appears in his role as the 
bishop of Hippo (Africa). Augustine wears a long white alb 
with tight sleeves, over which is a richly embroidered gold 
dalmatic and a cape held together by a clasp with the head 
of Christ. Along the borders of the cape are images of saints 
holding books and their attributes portrayed as if in 
architectural niches: on Augustine’s proper right shoulder 
is Saint Peter holding the keys to Rome. The sixteenth- 
century Spanish ecclesiastical robes, like the Turkish rug 
covering the desk, were probably studio props. 2 

In the 1992 addendum to his catalogue raisonne of 
Champaigne’s work published in 1976, Bernard Dorival 
dated the painting to about 1630. However, Philip 
Conisbee’s suggestion of a date in the mid- to late 1640s is 
more convincing. 3 Lorenzo Pericolo suggests that 
Champaigne created the painting about 1642 as part of a 
hypothesized commission to portray the four Fathers of the 
Church in separate paintings. The four pictures would have 
been based on paintings in medallions within the center of 
the four pendentives supporting the cupola of the church at 
the Sorbonne, for which he had been commissioned by 
Cardinal Richelieu and had executed between 1641 and 
1644. 4 Pericolo notes the close resemblance of the painting 
of Saint Jerome (private collection), which is similar in size 
and thought to be the companion of the Saint Augustine at 
LACMA, and the Sorbonne representation of Saint Jerome 
(Church of the Sorbonne, Paris). 5 However, the composition 
and iconographic emphasis of Champaigne’s representa¬ 
tion of Saint Augustine now at LACMA differ significantly 
from the Sorbonne painting and suggest his close contact 
with the leaders of Port-Royal des Champs, the center of 
Jansenism, the Catholic theological movement that 
followed the rigorous teachings of Augustine of Hippo. 

The spiritual leader and confessor of the abbey of 
Port-Royal was Jean du Vergier de Haurann (1581-1643), 
abbe de Saint-Cyran. A patron and correspondent of 
Cornelis Jansen (1585-1638), Saint-Cyran encouraged his 


friend to writ e Augustinus, the source of Jansenist teachings, 
which was published posthumously in Amsterdam in 1641 
and in Paris in 1642. At the request of Saint-Cyran, who was 
imprisoned by Cardinal Richelieu in 1638 for his Jansenist 
beliefs, Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) assumed the role of 
defender of Jansen against accusations of heresy. 6 Arnauld 
was one of a small group of solitaires who lived in the 
countryside near the abbey of Port-Royal, where his sister 
Mere Angelique Arnauld was abbess and other members of 
his family were actively involved. 7 

Champaigne’s association with Port-Royal and 
especially with members of the Arnauld family appears to 
have begun in the early 1640s. 8 Although Jansen’s controver¬ 
sial book does not appear in the posthumous inventory of 
Champaigne’s library, a number of books by Antoine 
Arnauld and his brother Robert Arnauld d’Andilly, known 
as D’Andilly (1589-1674), are included. 9 In addition to 
painting portraits of the Arnauld family and other mem¬ 
bers of the Port-Royal community, in 1648, the year his two 
daughters entered the convent, the artist designed the 
frontispiece of the engraving by Frangois Poilly for the 
second edition of De lafrequente communion, written by 
Antoine Arnauld in 1641 and first published in 1643. 10 The 
following year, 1649, an engraving by Poilly after 
Champaigne’s drawing The Conversion of Saint Augustine 
served as the frontispiece of the second edition of Robert 
Arnaud d’Andilly’s translation of the Confessions of Saint 
Augustine. 11 Given Champaigne’s association of Saint 
Augustine, who was attacked as a heretic, with the members 
of the Port-Royal community, who were opposed by the 
powerful Jesuits and other factions of the Catholic Church 
in Rome, the print by Poilly may have been intended as 
popular propaganda. 

For LACMA’s painting Champaigne adopted the 
tradition of a scholar in his study writing at his desk to 
represent an event in the life of Saint Augustine, with the 
now converted saint responding to the word Veritas as if it 
were a spoken word from God. The question of truth was 
central to the theoretical texts of Port-Royal, 12 and accord¬ 
ing to Antoine Arnauld, who cited Augustine as an 
authority, the chief purpose of theology was to defend the 
truths revealed by God through sacred scripture and the 
teachings of the Church. 13 

The inventory of Champaigne’s estate mentions a 
painting of Saint Augustine, as well as one of similar 
dimensions representing Saint Jerome. LACMA’s painting 
and the Saint Jerome mentioned above and reproduced in 
an engraving by Gerard Edelinck are thought to be those 
mentioned in the artist’s inventory. Although the two 
paintings traveled different routes, both paintings were 
later owned by the Swiss dealer Bruno Meissner, from 
whom LACMA acquired Saint Augustine. AW 


37 

















Charles Poerson 

(1609, Vic-sur-Seille-1667, Paris) 


Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


The Predication ofSaint Peter, 1642 Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

Oil on canvas, 30 x 24 14 in. M.81.73 

(76.2x61.6 cm) 



38 


Seventeenth Century 


T he tradition for the Paris Goldsmiths’ Guild to make 
an offering to the cathedral of Notre-Dame on 1 May 
of every year goes back to 1449. These donations 
took different forms: originally, a decorated tree was placed 
in front of the main altar. Later, a tabernacle was presented. 
Progressively, paintings replaced these early gifts. In the 
early sixteenth century, decorations of tabernacle doors 
with scenes of the Old Testament, followed later by the gifts 
of small paintings depicting the life of the Virgin Mary, 
known as “petits mays,” started the tradition of offering 
paintings to the cathedral. In 1630 guild members, working 
with the canons of the cathedral, decided on commissioning 
a single canvas of large dimensions representing the deeds 
of the apostles, called “grands mays.” The annual gifts, 
which lasted until 1708, totaled seventy-six paintings in all. 
They were seized during the French Revolution, after which 
about fifty survived and have been distributed among 
French museums. Thirteen of them have been returned to 
Notre-Dame and are now displayed in the cathedral’s chapels, 
Charles Poerson’s large Saint Peter among them. Each year, 
the “grand may” was exhibited for one day at the entrance 
to the cathedral, then for a month opposite the chapel of the 
Virgin, before joining the ones previously offered, now 
situated on the pillars of the nave. It was a much-expected 
event, often commented on in print, and a significant step 
in an artist’s career. In 1648, after the founding of the Royal 
Academy of Painting and Sculpture, only its members were 
allowed to receive this honor. Previously, as in the case of 
Poerson in 1642, the choice of the painter was based solely 
on the artist’s renown. 

Poerson was born in Vic-sur-Seille, a town in the duchy 
of Lorraine, a region independent from France at the time 
and rich in artists: Georges de La Tour and Jacques Callot 
originated there. Many of the artists from Lorraine traveled, 
mostly to Italy, but the region also had ties to northern Europe. 
The duchy’s situation at the crossroads of western Europe 
made it in fact a privileged area for contacts and exchanges. 
With its own, native tradition, some of its painters—and 
among the most glorious—by choice or necessity never 
visited Italy, most notably Georges de La Tour. Poerson is an 
additional case: while the possibility of a voyage to the Italian 
peninsula has been suggested in the past (as with Georges de 
La Tour), it appears to be unfounded. Like other artists from 
Lorraine, Poerson felt the magnet of Paris and probably 
moved there directly from the duchy. 

Painting in Paris had been revitalized since the return 
from Rome of Simon Vouet, summoned back to France by 
King Louis XIII for that very purpose. Paris was in develop¬ 
ment. New hotels (town houses) intended for the aristocracy 
required talented painters, as the fashion was not only for 
painted ceilings but also for decorated panels, paintings set 
in boiseries, and other forms of decors. In Paris Poerson may 
have joined the studio of Vouet and collaborated with him 
on the decoration of the Gallery of Famous Men at the 


Palais Cardinal (now Palais-Royal); he also worked with 
Eustache Le Sueur on the royal apartments of the Louvre. 

Among Poerson’s most prestigious commissions are 
the two “grands mays” he executed in 1642 and 1653 (by then 
Poerson was a well-established academicien). 1 Commissioned 
by Pierre Le Bastier and Francois Le Quint—the two members 
of the Goldsmiths’ Guild entitled to offer the “grand may” 
of that year—the 1642 painting was to represent Saint Peter 
preaching in the Temple of Jerusalem. The story (Acts 3) 
relates how the apostles Peter and John healed a lame man 
who was begging at the entrance to the temple. Seizing the 
opportunity provided by an awed audience, Peter 
harangued the crowd, berating them for having allowed 
Jesus to be killed and attributing his thaumaturgic power to 
his own faith in Christ. There are enough differences 
between the Los Angeles picture and the large “may,” which 
currently hangs in a chapel on the south side of the nave of 
Notre-Dame, to have made writers wonder whether this is a 
preparatory sketch for or a rieordo (replica) of the finished 
painting. “Mays” were popular and collectors appreciated 
having autograph versions of them. Furthermore, it was the 
tradition to offer such ricordi to the sponsors of the painting. 
As noted by Philip Conisbee, the Los Angeles work may in 
fact “have fulfilled both functions.” 2 

The composition is dominated by the sculptural figure 
of Saint Peter preaching. Around him, a man holds on to 
one of the columns, its ominous crack prefiguring the fate 
of the Temple of Jerusalem. An attentive scholar takes notes: 
according to tradition this could be Saint Mark, whose own 
writing was inspired by Saint Peter’s preaching. The Roman 
soldier at the left and the woman and child in the fore¬ 
ground add to what Conisbee described as the “gracefulness 
[of the] figures, who twist, turn, sway, and gesture in a 
sometimes slightly affected way that is reminiscent of the 
more decorative traditions of the mannerist style that still 
lingered in France in the early decades of the 1600s.” 
Compared with the innovative style, or “ Grand Manner,” 
brought to France by Vouet, there is indeed something 
slightly archaizing in the style adopted here by Poerson. 

Although by 1642 Poerson had developed a manner 
that displayed many sophisticated traits learned from Vouet, 
these are not prominent here. It may be that preparing for 
that specific—and doubtless daunting—commission, 
Poerson looked at earlier examples, namely the first “grand 
may,” painted in 1630 by his fellow artist from Lorraine, 
Georges Lallemant. That 1630 composition represents the 
episode in the Acts just preceding the one illustrated by 
Poerson—the healing of the lame man at the entrance to 
the temple. The painting is now lost but known through its 
engraving by Pierre Brebiette. 3 Poerson’s composition echoes 
Lallemant’s in many ways: the design of the columns, use of 
architectural elements in the background, and massing of 
the figures in a compact group are too reminiscent of 
Lallemant’s composition to be purely coincidental, jpm 


39 



















Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.78.77 



Jean-Baptiste Tuby I 

(1635, Rome-1700, Paris) 


Provenance 

References 


Diana with a Stag and a Dog, 1687 
Terracotta, 10 J 4 x 16% x 834 in. 
(26x42.9x21 cm) 

Inscribed and dated on base: Tubifit 1687 



40 


Seventeenth Century 


D iana with a Stag and a Dog is unique in the corpus of 
Jean-Baptiste Tuby I: indeed, no other terracotta 
statuette by this artist has been preserved. In 
addition, the signature differs from those of his other works 
by its use of cursive letters (instead of capitals) and by an 
Italian spelling of his name (with a final i instead ofy). 1 

First documented in Paris in 1660 and already elected 
to the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in 1663, 
Tuby had been born in Rome—the reason why he was 
sometimes called “le Romain”—and was naturalized a 
French citizen by the king in 1672. He enjoyed a very 
successful career and was one of the most important 
sculptors during the reign of Louis XIV. He was Officier des 
Batiments du Roi (Officer of Royal Buildings) from 1670 
until 1699 and, with other artists, directed the Academy of 
the Gobelins, from 1691 until his death. The artist had 
lodgings and an atelier at the Gobelins from 1666 on and 
even established a studio for casting bronze there. He 
created, alone or in collaboration, funeral monuments of 
such eminent personalities as the Marechal de Turenne 
(Invalides, Paris), Jean-Baptiste Colbert (church of Saint- 
Eustache, Paris), and Cardinal Mazarin (chapel of the 
Institut de France, Paris). During his entire career, he was 
involved in numerous royal commissions, under the 
direction of the painter Charles Le Brun (1619-1690), with 
whom he enjoyed a close friendship, and whose niece he 
married in 1680. The many sculptures he realized for the 
park of Versailles include his most famous group, the lead 
Chariot of Apollo for the Basin of Apollo at the head of the 
Grand Canal (1668-70). 

The representation of the moon goddess Diana, who 
was also a goddess of the hunt, as indicated in the terracotta 
by the presence of the dog and stag, would have been 
appropriate in the park of Versailles, whose gardens were 
dominated by the figure of Apollo, Diana’s twin brother, 
and whose woods were used by the king for hunting. But 
among Tuby’s commissions for the park of Versailles, no 
document mentions the realization of a statue of Diana by 
the sculptor, for which LACMA’s terracotta could have been 


a model. The Cabinet of Diana, a small pool north of the 
Water Parterre, is decorated only by two groups of fighting 
animals. In addition, no artwork featuring Diana is listed in 
Tuby’s probate inventory, which indicates the subjects of 
several models but also gathers “sixty models in terracotta 
and plaster, in the round and in relief” under a unique entry 
without any precise identification. 2 

The depiction of Diana as a water nymph leaning on 
an overturned vase spilling water, and the composition of 
this semireclining naked figure, may have been inspired by 
two famous French Renaissance sculptures, now preserved 
in the Louvre: Benvenuto Cellini’s Nymph of Fontainebleau, a 
large-scale semicircular bronze relief conceived for the 
main entrance to the castle, but used instead for the 
decoration of the castle of Anet; and the anonymous 
monumental marble statue Diana of Anet, which sur¬ 
mounted a fountain in the gardens of that castle belonging 
to Diana of Poitiers. 3 

In his small terracotta, Tuby followed a composition 
he used two years earlier, in 1685, for his bronze statue The 
River Sadne and Cupid, intended for the Water Parterre at 
Versailles: a semireclining naked female figure leaning on 
an overturned vase spilling water. Stylistically, his Diana 
shares similarities with several artworks he did for 
Versailles, including The River Sadne and Flora with regard to 
the modeling of the body, and Thalia with regard to the 
hairstyle and the facial features, with a small round chin, 
full cheeks, and large eyes. 4 

The LACMA terracotta was perhaps that which was 
offered for sale in Paris in 1935, unfortunately with no 
indication of its provenance. 5 A color plate illustrating a 
1970s manual on medieval and Renaissance furniture 
attests at least that the work was once in the collection of 
Andre Fetrot, where it was displayed on top of a wooden 
cabinet. 6 It is also worth mentioning a bronze version sold 
at auction in London in 1981, slightly larger and with 
variations in the positions of the drapery and urn under the 
right arm and of the quiver under the legs. 7 ALD 


41 












11 

Simon Vouet 

Two modelli for an Altarpiece 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

(1590-1649, Paris) 

in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Rome, 1625 

Oil on canvas, 16 x 25 14 in. 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.1-2 


Provenance 


(40.6 x 61.6 cm) each 


Exhibitions 




References 







42 


Seventeenth Century 


P ainted disotto in sii, a technique that represents a scene 
as if viewed from below so that the figures seem to 
float overhead, youthful angels appear to sit on 
clouds in a golden sky. The monumental figures are tightly 
contained within the arched boundaries of the two paintings 
that appear to be either side of a semicircle. Clearly articu¬ 
lated, the angels are modeled by strong light cast from an 
unseen source above and between them. Their twisting forms 
and graceful gestures seem to break through the surface of 
the canvas into the viewer’s space, creating the impression 
of their material presence. This technique, as well as the 
luminous palette of orange, lavender, pink, green, and gold, 
is characteristic of Simon Vouet’s works during his late 
Italian period, before his return to France in 1627. 

Born in France, Vouet spent his early career in Rome, 
where he played an important role in the development of 
the Baroque style. Vouet’s reputation as one of the leading 
artists in Rome was secured in 1624, when he was elected 
principe of the Academy of Saint Luke and commissioned by 
the Congregation of the Fabbrica, the governing body of 
cardinals, to paint an altarpiece for Saint Peter’s Basilica, 
Rome, the first foreign artist to be granted that privilege. 
The two modelli for an altarpiece in Saint Peter’s Basilica are 
among the surviving preparatory works made for the 
second phase of that important commission. 

The original commission for the altarpiece for the 
Cappella del Coro Nuovo di Canonica, or Chancel of the 
New Choir of the Canons, the third chapel on the left of the 
nave in Saint Peter’s Basilica, stipulated that Vouet was to 
paint an altarpiece representing Saint Peter healing the sick 
with his shadow. 1 By 14 March 1624, Vouet had produced a 
concetto, which he presented to the congregation for 
approval. On 2 April he was paid too scudi and began 
working on the design of the altarpiece. According to the 
commission, the altarpiece was to depict Saint Peter Casting 
His Shadow to Heal the Sick as part of a cycle of Petrine 
subjects planned by the congregation for the chapels of the 
renovated nave of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Vouet had worked 
for a year and a half on the commission when, in September 
1625, the decision was abruptly made to change the subject 
of the altar. At the insistence of the Chapter of Saint Peter’s, 
composed of one hundred priests and clerics who were 
responsible for the liturgical and ceremonial life of the 
basilica, 2 Michelangelo’s Pietd was to be returned to the altar 
of the Chancel of the Canons, where it would be placed in 
front of Vouet’s proposed altarpiece. 3 Vouet was, conse¬ 
quently, instructed to change the subject of his altarpiece. It 
was to be, as the artist himself described it, an “historia per 
accompagnare la Pieta di MichelAngelo.” 4 


Vouet set to work on the revised altarpiece in 
September 1625. Painted in oil as a mural on the wall behind 
the altar, it had to be completed before the sculpture was 
placed. The altarpiece was completed by 22 April 1626, and 
on 22 July 1626, the altar was consecrated by Cardinal 
Scipione Borghese, the archpriest of Saint Peter’s. 

A pen-and-wash drawing of the funeral ceremony for 
Maria Clementina Sobieska in the Cappella del Coro, Saint 
Peter’s (fig. 4), shows Vouet’s altarpiece in situ in 1735. 5 
Michelangelo’s Pietd appears on a pedestal behind the altar, 
in front of the altarpiece. Saints Francis and Anthony of 
Padua kneel on either side of the sculpture in adoration of 
the Madonna and dead Christ. In a second veduta (view) by 
Giovanni Battista Falda, showing the Pietd in front of 
Vouet’s altarpiece, the cross is discernible but the angels are 
only generally described. 6 

In 1967 Erich Schleier interpreted the evidence of the 
Berlin drawing as indicating that the cross in Vouet’s 
altarpiece was floating. In his opinion, which was taken up 
by others, the painting represented the apotheosis of the 
cross. In the Vouet exhibition catalogue of 2008, however, 
Schleier accepts the interpretation put forward by Louise 
Rice, who asserts that the cross is planted on Calvary rather 
than floating and was intended to establish the setting for 
the sculpture. Rather than the adoration of the cross, the 
figures of Saints F rancis and Antonio respond to the Pietd, 
which is the true subject of Vouet’s altarpiece, essential to 
his composition. 7 

Although the Berlin drawing gives only a general 
description of the altarpiece, the upper section of which 
appears draped, Schleier was able to identify a painting 
titled The Adoration of the Holy Cross (fig. 5), formerly 
attributed to Giovanni Lanfranco, as a bozzetto (sketch) by 
Vouet for the upper portion of his altarpiece for Saint 
Peter’s. 8 Schleier’s stylistic attribution is supported by 
written descriptions of the altarpiece, as well as the 
perspective of the angels rising toward the dynamic figure 
of God in a golden Heaven in the Adoration bozzetto, now in 
Hovingham, which creates the impression of soaring height, 
appropriate for the altarpiece’s enormous scope. 9 

The Hovingham bozzetto served as an initial sketch for 
Vouet’s large modello for the altarpiece in Saint Peter’s. The 
modello, which is the only one known to have been created 
by the artist, is probably the rolled large modello mentioned 
in two inventories of Vouet’s possessions. 10 It was later cut 
into pieces, possibly because it was damaged or simply for 
individual sale. LACMA’s sketches represent two of four 
known fragments of the original modello. The four frag¬ 
ments, as well as the bozzetto, were included in the Vouet 


43 




















exhibition in Nantes and Besancon in 2008-9—the similar 
scale and perspective of the figures, the colors, and the 
continuation of motifs from one fragment to another 
confirm that the four sections originally formed a single 
canvas, of which other areas are still missing. The refined 
finish of the paintings, which do not include the figures of 
the saints, suggests that the modello was used by Vouet to 
show his patrons how the uppermost section of the 
enormous altarpiece would appear. The modello was also 
probably used by his workshop to paint the large altar- 
piece. 11 The limited time given to complete the project and 
the nature of seventeenth-century workshop practice 
indicate the assistance of his workshop. The suggestion by 
Philippe Malgouyres that assistants, specifically Charles 
Mellin, had actually painted parts of the modello, including 
LACMA’s painting of the angels in the upper right, however, 
appears unlikely. 12 The continuity of style and handling 
and the significant changes made between the bozzetto and 
modello suggest that Vouet painted the modello himself. The 
involvement of assistants was probably limited to the work 
on the mural. 

LACMA’s sketches relate closely to the upper left and 
right of the bozzetto, but there are significant differences. In 
LACMA’s sketch for the left side, the proper right leg of the 
angel in reddish-orange no longer straddles the cloud but 
rests his foot on it, and the position of the angel in blue 


behind him has shifted. Instead of the arched top indicated 
in both the LACMA sketches and the known shape of the 
altarpiece, the top of the bozzetto is square. Schleier suggests, 
convincingly, that Vouet added angels to the upper corners 
of the original composition to complete the bozzetto as an 
independent work. 13 

Two additional fragments of Vouet’s modello are 
known: Angels Carrying the Pillar of the Flagellation (private 
collection), seen at the lower left in the Hovingham bozzetto, 
and Angels with the Instruments of the Passion (Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Besancon), seen at the lower right. 14 The sponge, 
which was at the end of the lance held by the upper angel in 
the Besancon fragment, appears in the lower left of the 
LACMA fragment, further supporting the unification of the 
four fragments as part of the original large modello. 

The modelli at LACMA, at Besangon, and in the private 
collection, as well as the bozzetto at Hovingham and a few 
drawings made after individual figures, are all that remain 
of Vouet’s altarpiece. By 1730 it had been decided that the 
enormous work would be replaced by a mosaic reproduc¬ 
tion. Unfortunately, Vouet’s altarpiece, which had been 
painted in oil as a mural, was accidentally destroyed by 
workers while attempting to move it. The altarpiece was 
ultimately replaced by a mosaic reproduction of Pietro 
Bianchi’s The Immaculate Virgin Adored by Saints, which retains 
the shape of Vouet’s original altarpiece. 15 AW 


44 


Seventeenth Century 


& 



Fig. 4 



Fig-5 


F ig. 4 Funeral Ceremonyfor Maria Clementina Sobieska 
(1072-1735) in the Cappella del Coro, Saint Peter’s Basilica, 
1735. Pen and wash in brown ink, 19% x 24 Vi in. 
(49.2 x 62.1 cm). Kunstbibliothek, Berlin (inv. no. 
Hdz 535) 

Fig. 5 Simon Vouet, formerly attributed to Giovanni 
Lanfranco, Angels with the Instruments of the Passion, 
ca. 1626. Oil on canvas, 26 Yz x 25 in. (67.3 x 63.5 cm). 
Private collection 


45 


Vouet, Two modelli for an Altarpiece in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Rome 





























12 

Simon Vouet 

(1590-1649, Paris) 

Virginia da Vezzo, the Artist’s Wife, 
as the Magdalen, ca. 1627 

Oil on canvas, 40 x 31 in. 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.83.201 

Provenance 


(101.6 x 78.7 cm) 


Exhibitions 




References 




Technical report 






46 


Seventeenth Century 


C ast in strong light against the dark background of 
rocks and vegetation, Mary Magdalen, identified by 
the ointment jar she holds in her right hand, looks 
seductively out of the corners of her eyes while she fingers 
her long auburn hair as it cascades over her bare shoulders. 
Her white chemise, untied at her wrists and neck, has 
slipped from her shoulders, partially revealing her breasts. 
Rich, voluminous fabric engulfs the half-length figure. The 
reddish-brown drapery that she gathers up with her left 
arm wraps around her, reappearing at the lower left. Like 
the warm brown shadows and reflected light that softly 
model the far side of her face and body, the drapery helps to 
situate the figure in the natural setting, while Mary 
Magdalen’s sumptuous blue satin sleeve projects forward 
into the viewer’s space, casting a shadow across the sleeve of 
her white chemise. A lively pattern of shimmering light 
moves across the tops of the folds, disappearing into deep 
shadows. A thin line of light follows the sharp edge of the 
blue sleeve folded back at the wrist and then winds around 
the Magdalen’s back. Simon Vouet uses the folds of the blue 
drapery that sweep over her arm to suggest volume but also 
to provide a vertical balance to the diagonal sweep of the 
hair and arm. A delicate string at the cuff of her right sleeve 
provides a subtle vertical accent that helps to stabilize the 
dynamic figure and to balance the composition. 

Since at least the ninth century, Mary Magdalen has 
represented a conflation of three biblical figures: Mary, the 
sister of Martha and Lazarus; Mary, who was present at the 
Crucifixion and the first to whom the resurrected Christ 
appeared; and the unnamed sinner who anointed Jesus’s 
feet and dried them with her long hair at the home of 
Simon the Pharisee. 1 According to the medieval legend 
recounted by Jacobus de Voragine in the Golden Legend, 
which first appeared about 1250, Mary Magdalen, together 
with Martha and other disciples, traveled on a pilotless and 
rudderless ship to Marseille to escape persecution. After 
preaching to and converting the pagan Gauls, destroying 
their temples, and building Christian churches, Mary 
Magdalen retreated to the rocky wilderness of Sainte 
Baume, near Aix-en-Provence, where she lived an ascetic life 
in solitude for thirty years. Following her death, Saint 
Maximin, the bishop of Aix, had her body interred in his 
church. It was later stolen and taken to Vezelay, but in 1279 


the Benedictines of the basilica of Saint Maximin 
announced that they had found the real body of Mary 
Magdalen in a grotto in Sainte Baume. In the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, the basilica of Saint Maximin was a 
popular pilgrimage destination, visited by French kings, 
including Vouet’s patron, Louis XIII, who considered the 
cult of the Magdalen important to their monarchy. 2 

As an example of someone who had sinned and been 
forgiven by Christ, Mary Magdalen was especially revered 
during the seventeenth century as a very accessible example 
of penance. In response to the Protestants’ rejection of 
penance as one of the seven sacraments, the Catholic 
Church sponsored literature and images promoting its 
spiritual validity and importance and encouraging people 
to seek forgiveness from God by confessing their sins to 
their local parish priest. The most popular image of Mary 
Magdalen in France and Italy during the seventeenth 
century is that of the saint portrayed alone in the wilder¬ 
ness as a penitent prostitute with long hair and partially 
undressed, her gaze focused on a crucifix or on the divine 
light that shines from above; her ointment jar and a skull 
appear on a rock near her. 

Vouet painted the subject of the penitent Mary 
Magdalen alone in the wilderness several times, beginning 
in Italy and continuing in Paris. All but LACMA’s painting 
follow the popular iconography represented in his mono¬ 
chrome painting from about 1616 (private collection) 3 and 
a later version (ca. 1630; collection of Vicomte Rene de 
Vaulchier, Chateau de Savigny-les-Beaune), 4 which place the 
penitent Magdalen in a rocky setting, her attention focused 
on a crucifix, with an open book, a skull, and the ointment 
jar on a rock near her. 5 

Vouet’s depiction of the elegantly dressed Mary 
Magdalen in LACMA’s version is unique. Placed in a rocky 
landscape and with her long, loose hair partially concealing 
her bare shoulders and breasts, she appears neither as the 
Magdalen before her conversion when she lived in luxury 
nor as the penitent sinner who retreated to the wilderness. 
Rather than penitent, she is sensual and seductive. Aside 
from the ointment jar, which may have been an after¬ 
thought, there are no references to her penance: neither a 
crucifix, nor a skull, nor a book. Rather than fix her gaze on 
a crucifix or look toward the heavenly light as she typically 


47 












does in other versions by Vouet and his contemporaries, she 
looks coquettishly at the viewer from the corner of her eyes 
as she fingers the curls of her long hair. 

Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnee was the first to identify 
Vouet’s model as the artist’s wife, Virginia da Vezzo (1606- 
1638), based on physical similarities with the engraved 
portrait of her made in 1626 by Claude Mellan (fig. 6), in 
which she appears at a younger, more innocent age with 
orange blossoms in her hair. 6 Virginia da Vezzo (Vezzi), 
a recognized beauty, was the daughter of Vouet’s neighbors 
on the Via Ferritina, Rome, and may have been his student. 
Vouet and Virginia were married in Rome on 21 April 1626. 
The following year, when Louis XIII summoned Vouet to 
be his court painter, the family, including Virginia, their 
eldest daughter, Francesca (Francoise), and Virginia’s mother 
moved to Paris. While bearing the artist at least four more 
children in Paris, Virginia, an accomplished painter and 
pastel artist, gave drawing lessons in the Louvre to the 
daughters of wealthy families. 

Undated, Virginia da Vezzo, the Artist’s Wife, as the 
Magdalen is generally considered to have been painted 
between Vouet’s marriage in 1626 and 1627, the year he 
arrived in Paris. The perceived age and earthy, seductive 
attitude of Virginia suggest a more mature woman than she 
appears in Claude Mellan’s print of 1626, which was 
probably based on an earlier drawing. The image of Virginia 
in LACMA’s painting is closer to that in Vouet’s painting 
Time Defeated by Hope, Love, and Beauty, signed and dated 
Simon Vouet Rome 162/(Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. 
P002987), for which she served as the model, perhaps signi¬ 
ficantly, for the lively figure of Venus, the goddess of love. 


Whether dated just before or after the artist’s move to 
Paris in 1627, 7 the earthly directness of Virginia da Vezzo, the 
Artist’s Wife, as the Magdalen continues the style of Vouet’s 
paintings produced during his Italian years rather than his 
more decorative work after his move to Paris. Maty 
Magdalen, with her graceful hands and long fingers, recalls 
in particular the half-length, portrait-like paintings of 
female saints cast in strong light and engulfed by volumi¬ 
nous satin drapery that Vouet painted in Italy during the 
1620s. The way the figure dominates the large canvas and 
directly confronts the viewer relates to Vouet’s paintings 
Judith with the Head of Holofernes (1615-27; Alte Pinakothek, 
Munich, inv. no. 2279) and Saint Catherine of Alexandria, 
signed and dated Simon Vouet ft. Rom/1626 (Richard Green, 
London). 8 A more subtle version of Virginia da Vezzo’s 
sideways glance in LACMA’s painting appears in the figure 
of Salome (Galleria Corsini, Rome), who looks ofF to the side 
rather than directly at the viewer. 

Whether Vouet painted Virginia da Vezzo, the Artist’s Wife, 
as the Magdalen originally as an intimate portrait of his wife 
or as an idiosyncratic painting of the repentant saint for 
which his wife served as a convenient and appealing model 
is unknown. Rather than an altarpiece, the painting was 
probably intended for either the artist himself or for a 
private patron. There is no proof that the painting, as 
previously supposed, was that reported in the collection of 
Cassiano dal Pozzo. AW 


48 


Seventeenth Century 



Fig. 6 Claude Mellan (1598-1688), Virginia da Vezzo, 
Wife of Simon Vouet, 1626. Engraving, sheet: 3^x3 in. 
(9.5 x 7.6 cm), trimmed to oval. The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art. Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1953 
(inv. no. 53.601.310) 


49 


Vouet, Virginia de Vezzo, the Artist’s Wife, as the Magdalen 


















































ENDNOTES 


1 Boulogne (back to entry) 

1 There are five known versions and copies of 
LACMA’s painting: 1) Musee des Beaux-Arts, Blois, 
on deposit from Musee de la Chateau, oil on 
canvas, 93 x 132 cm (Mojana 1989, no. 100); 2) 
Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt, oil on 
canvas, 117 x 168 cm (Mojana 1989, no. 101); 3), art 
market. New York (sold Sotheby’s, New York, 10 
Jan. 1991, lot 51), oil on canvas, 101.6 x 147.3 cm 
(Mojana 1989, no. 102, as Aquavella Galleries, New 
York); 4) Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, oil 
on canvas, 97 x 143 cm (Mojana 1989, no. 103); 5) 
Galleria Canessa, Milan, oil on canvas, 110 x 145 cm 
(Mojana 1989, no. 104). The paintings in 
Darmstadt and Milan include the canvas added in 
the eighteenth century and thus are later copies. 
For copies, see Hoog i960 and Nicolson 1979. 

2 According to his first biographer, the German 
painter Joachim von Sandrart, Valentin de 
Boulogne, whom he calls "Valentin von Colombe,” 
was in Rome by 1614, the year his compatriot 
Simon Vouet arrived from Venice. See Sandrart 
and Peltzer 1925, p. 256. 

3 Sandrart and Peltzer 1925, p. 170, in reference to 
Gerhard Seghers. 

4 Cuzin 1980, p. 15. 

5 Here, the decoration is limited to vegetation, but 
Hartje-Grave 2004, p. 236, identifies the image in 
other paintings by Manfredi and his followers as 
the antique terracotta relief from Cerveteri with 
the Marriage ofPeleus and Thetis, then in the 
possession of the Farnese family. The relief was 
also known from an anonymous print. 

6 In other paintings, Valentin introduced young 
women in loose clothing, children with curly 
heads, and female instrumentalists on the 
harpsichord and bass fiddles. Valentin repeats 
figures in different combinations throughout his 
work. 

7 According to Cesare Vecellio’s manual of 
costumes (Venice, 1590), "these bravi or abricchi... 
wear on their heads high hats of velvet or silk... 
with a jacket of Flemish cloth and stitched sleeves. 

... They frequently vary their dress, and are always 
dueling.... They serve this or that [master] for 
money, swearing and bullying without 
provocation, and committing all kind of scandals 
and murders” (quoted by Christiansen 2009, p. 17). 
To carry a sword within Rome required a license 
unless one was in the service of an aristocrat or 
cardinal. 

8 Cuzin 1975, p. 59, dates it to 1623-26. 


9 Regarding the interest in music in relationship to 
the art of Caravaggio among Rome’s elite during 
the early seventeenth century, see Camiz 1991 and 
Christiansen 2009. 

10 Although inscriptions on prints do not 
necessarily reflect the intention of an artist, the 
inscription on Crispijn van de Passe’s print, A 
Festive Meal Can Lead to Lasciviousness, supports the 
moralizing interpretation of tavern scenes in 
which the intoxication and careless behavior of 
young dandies lead to their being victimized by 
the deception of gamblers, pickpockets, and 
fortune-tellers. Other paintings within the genre, 
such as Valentin’s Five Senses and the Four Ages of 
Man (National Gallery, London), represent 
popular allegories. 

11 Christiansen 1990, p. 28. 

12 "Music has reached a new, unaccustomed 
perfection and is executed by a considerable 
number of good musicians, trained by excellent 
teachers described above. Their sweet and artful 
singing brings delight to all who hear it” 
(London-Rome 2001, p. 108). 

13 Christiansen 1990, pp. 28,34. 

14 Inventories of the Orleans collection: Inventaire 

II- 1752 (after the death of the regent’s son), 
Archives Nationales, Paris, XIa 9.170; Inventaire 

III- 1785 (after the death of the regent’s 
grandson). Archives Nationales, Paris, XIa.9.181; 
Inv. no. 4909. 

15 See Fader 2007. 

2 , Claude Lorrain (back to entry) 

1 Unknown until 1975, when it was acquired by 
Wildenstein from the Filleul family in France, the 
painting is accepted by Marcel Roethlisberger as 
"a fine example of that favourite type of pastoral 
from the 1630s which consists of intimate, poetic 
scenery rendered in a transparent atmosphere.” 
Roethlisberger 1979, p. 24: "Compositional and 
stylistic parallels are the Pastoral at Copenhagen, 
the Rest on the Flight at Omaha, the Journey to 
Emmaus in the Stirling Collection and, closest of 
all, the Dance (Kaufmann Collection), which must 
date a year or two later and also has a mill (as do 
LV11 and 22).” Painted in 1634, the LACMA 
pastoral precedes the initiation, about 1635, of 
Claude’s Liber Veritatis, in which he recorded his 
paintings and their patrons with drawings. 

3 Coy pel (back to entry) 

1 See Gamier 1989, p. 111, no. 43, pi. V. 

2 See Gamier 1989, no. 156, fig. 55. 

3 Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, p. 198. 


4 La Hyre (back to entry) 

1 Pierre Rosenberg and Jacques Thuillier in 
Grenoble-Rennes-Bordeaux 1989-90, p. 188, no. 
121, oil on canvas, 425 x 368 cm. In addition to the 
1635 composition, the catalogue lists no. 270, 

oil on canvas, 53 x 33 cm (private collection, Paris); 
no. 312, small, possible oil sketch, ca. 1650-53 
(private collection, Paris); and no. 319, oil on canvas, 
78 x 53 cm (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 
Gemaldegalerie, inv. no. 613). Rosenberg and 
Thuillier were unable to relate the two privately 
held sketches, which they suggest are bozzetti to 
finished paintings. 

2 The Protestants objected that the Bible describes 
neither the Virgin’s death nor the events 
surrounding it. The story of the apostles gathered 
around her empty tomb and witnessing her 
Assumption into Heaven is based on apocryphal 
and legendary sources, especially Jacobus de 
Voragine’s Golden Legend. 

3 Ostrow 1996, p. 124. 

4 Oil on canvas, 78 x 53 cm. Grenoble-Rennes- 
Bordeaux 1989-90, p. 334, no. 319. The 
Kunsthistorisches Museum acquired the painting 
in 1807. The relatively small dimensions of the 
Vienna painting compared with the version in the 
Louvre from 1635 (4.25 x 3.68 m) suggest that it 
was intended for a private chapel. 

5 Crelly 1962, fig. 82. The Reunion des Musees 
Nationaux, inv. no. RMN179325, identifies it as 
"blacklead, wash drawing.” 

3 La Toill' (back to entry) 

1 Only Le Floch 1995 has suggested that the 
painting is either entirely or to a great extent by 
Georges de La Tour’s son, Etienne, an opinion 
based both on stylistic grounds and the author’s 
personal interpretation of documents. 

2 See, for instance, The Penitent Magdalen by Le Nain 
(possibly Louis), ca. 1642, private collection, 
Switzerland (Fort Worth-San Francisco-Lens 
2016-17,no.10). 

3 For instance, Jacques Blanchard, The Penitent 
Magdalen, ca. 1637-38, Musee Fabre, Montpellier, 
inv. no. 2005.3.1. 

4 Conisbee, in Washington-Fort Worth 1996-97, 
p. 109. 

5 Seguin’s library, rich in Spanish religious books, 
was bequeathed to the Carmelites of Nancy. 


50 


Seventeenth Century 


6 Adhemar 1972. Olivier Bonfait, in Rome 
2000-2001, p. 212, rejects the suggestion for lack 
of historical evidence. Indeed, Adhemar’s 
suggestion that La Tour represented not the 
Magdalen but instead members of the convent of 
Notre-Dame du Refuge who were organized in 
three categories according to their previous lives, 
to the desire to repent, or to the lack of it, appears 
to be too constricted but does not exclude a strong 
relationship between La Tour and the local 
religious communities. 

7 Thuillier 1992, p. 263. 

8 Olivier Bonfait, in Rome 2000-2001, p. 221. 

6 Moillon (back to entry) 

1 Fare 1974, p. 51, notes a document of 1615 that 
refers to Nicolas Moillon as a painter to the king. 
An inventory made at the time of his death listed 
374 paintings, comprising his stock as a dealer and 
forty-seven by his hand, including religious works, 
portraits, and a painting from the story of 1/ pastor 
fido. 

2 Fare 1974, pp-53-54* 

3 Regarding Gamier, see Fare 1974, pp. 44-48. 

4 Bott 2001, p. 103, speculates that Isaac and his twin 
brother, Peter, may have worked in Hulsdonck’s 
studio in Antwerp following the death of their 
father, Daniel, in 1619. Isaac could also have 
known examples of Hulsdonck’s paintings in 
Hanau or Frankfurt, which had strong artistic and 
intellectual ties to Antwerp. 

5 According to Alsina 2009, p. 45, Giradot (d. 1680), 
was a wood merchant, probably related to a family 
by that name that appears in the Paris archives, 
who were originally from Nivernais. The family 
members were actively involved as wood 
merchants in Paris. 

6 Alsina 2009, p. 61, associates the somber palette 
with Jansenism, a Catholic theological movement 
centered in France during the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, which emphasized original 
sin and asceticism. Opposed by the Jesuits, the 
members of the movement believed in 
predestination, a major tenet of the Calvinists. 

J PaiTOCel (back to entry) 

1 De Piles 1677, p. 70. 


8 Philippe de Champaigne 

(back to entry) 


1 The major debate was the concept of grace, which 
Augustine said was essential for moral perfection 
because we are all born sinners with a sinful heart 
and will. In rejecting Augustine’s concept of grace, 
Pelagius asserted that moral perfection could be 
attained in this life without grace through human 
will. 

2 A similar but more generalized rug appears in 
Champaigne’s portrait of the contemporary 
lawyer, Omerll Talon, 1649 (National Gallery of 
Art, Washington, DC, inv. no. 1952.5.35). 

3 Conisbee (Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991) 
compared "its meticulously detailed and superbly 
skillful execution” with Champaigne’s Moses 

and the Ten Commandments, of 1648 (Milwaukee Art 
Museum, inv. no. M1964.121). Although the 
Milwaukee work is not dated, Andre Felibien states 
that Champaigne had painted it for Pomponne de 
Bellievre in 1648. Dorival 1976, vol. 1, p. 13, no. 12, 
cites Felibien, Entretiens sur les vies etsur les ouvrages 
des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes se par tie 
(Paris, 1688), p. 175. 

4 Pericolo 2002, p. 156. 

5 Pericolo 2002, pp. 156-57. 

6 Premiere apologiepourjansenius, 1644, and Seconde 
apologie, 1645. See Kremer 2017. 

7 The solitaires, including Pierre Nicole (1625-1695), 
Claude Launcelot (ca. 1615-1695), and Louis-Isaac 
Lemaistre de Sacy (1613-1684), established the 
Petites ecoles de Port-Royal. Founded by 
Saint-Cyran as a school for thirty children in 1637, 
the experimental school taught in French rather 
than Latin, thus distinct from the traditional 
Jesuit teaching system. Among the students was 
the playwright Racine. 

8 His association with Port-Royal, which did not 
exclude his work for members of the court, 
coincided with the deaths of his wife and son, as 
well as of his great patrons, Richelieu (1641) and 
Louis XIII (1643). Robert Arnauld d’Andilly was 
the eldest and Antoine the youngest of twenty 
children born to Catherine Marion and Antoine 
Arnauld, the attorney and procureurgeneral of 
Catherine de Medici. The family was ennobled in 
1567. Port-Royal des Champs, the possession of 
the Arnauld family, was virtually razed during 
the religious wars. Thanks to dispensations from 
Pope Alexander VII, in 1599 the patriarch of the 
family installed his seven-year-old daughter as 
coadministrator of the convent. In 1606 she took 
religious orders and became known as Mere 
Angelique, who would be an influential monastic 
reformer, initiating a strict lifestyle based on the 
rule of Saint Benedict. The monastery of 
Port-Royal des Champs was closed because of an 
outbreak of malaria and relocated to Paris. 

9 Grouchy and Guiffrey 1892, pp. 216-18, 


reproduces the inventory. 

10 The frontispiece illustrates the unworthy guest 
being dispelled from the wedding, considered to 
be the main biblical account of predestination 
(Matthew 22:1-14). 

11 Dorival 1972, p. 43, no. 61. 

12 Cojannot-Le Blanc 2011, p. 181. 

13 Kremer 2017. 

9 Poerson (back to entry) 

1 Poerson’s second “may,” The Arrival ofSaint Paul in 
Malta, is lost and known only through its 
engraving by Nicolas-Henri Tardieu and an oil 
sketch, for which see Paris 2012-13, no. 113, pp. 
272-73. 

2 Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, p. 74. 

3 Paris 2012-13, PP- 266-67. 

IO Tuby I (back to entry) 

1 A thermo-luminescence test has revealed that the 
clay was baked between 1660 and 1720, except for 
the antlers, which are a later restoration (Tuby 
object file, Department of European Painting and 
Sculpture, LACMA). 

2 The artworks mentioned in the probate inventory 
are transcribed in Souchal 1987, pp. 363-64. 

3 A similar composition is used in an anonymous 
French seventeenth-century drawing featuring 
Diana (but not fully naked) surrounded by three 
dogs and leaning on an urn (Souchal 1987, p. 360, 
fig. s 9 ). 

4 Artworks illustrated in Souchal 1987, pp. 339-40, 
no. 31, pp. 353-54, no. 55, p. 356, no. 62. 

5 Auction sale (“collection M. X...”), Paris, Hotel 
Drouot, Maitre Etienne Ader, lot 60: “Groupe en 
terre cuite: Diane couchee pres d’un chien et d’un 
cerf. Il porte l’inscription: J. B. Tuby. Socle en 
marbre vert. L. 43,5 cm” (information provided by 
Guilhem Scherf, Tuby object file, Department of 
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA). 

6 Burckhardt [1977], ill. p. 56 (identification made 
by Dean Walker, Tuby object file, Department of 
European Painting and Sculpture, LACMA). 

7 Antiquities, Works of Art and Important Renaissance 
Bronzes, Plaquettes, and Limoges Enamels, Christie’s, 
London, 8 July 1981, lot 355, p. 74: "A fine 18th 
century bronze group of Diana recumbent with a 
hound and a stag, on a semi-circular green marble 
base with ormolu mounts. 44 cm long.” 


51 






















11 Vouet (back to entry) 


1 The documents were published by Poliak 1928-31, 
vol. 2 (1931), pp. 230-34,236. See also note 9 below. 

2 For the responsibilities of the two divisions, see 
Rice 1997, pp. 7-16. 

3 See Rice 1997, pp. 216-21, especially 216-17. The 
private Chapel of the Chapter was built directly 
above the Chapel of the Canons in the old Saint 
Peter’s by Sixtus IV, dedicated to Saints Francis 
and Anthony of Padua and to the Immaculate 
Conception. Michelangelo’s Pieta was placed on 
the altar in 1568. In 1609 the original Choir of the 
Canons was demolished, and the Pieta was moved 
to the temporary choir erected at the altar of 
Saints Simon and Jude in the south transept of 
the new basilica. Urban VIII resolved the dispute 
between the Canons and the Congregation, 
returning the sculpture to the Chapter for 
placement in the Choir of the Canons. 

4 Malgouyres 2011, pp. 78-80. 

5 Schleier 1968. 

6 Rice 1997, pp. 217-18, fig. 118. 

7 Schleier, in Nantes-Besangon 2008-9, p-i 49 > 
referring to Rice 1997, p. 218. 

8 Schleier 1967. 

9 Regarding documents describing the altarpiece, 
see Crelly 1962,247; and Paris 1990-91, pp. 102-4; 
Schleier 1967, pp. 272-73, cites the 1655 
description by Bralion. See also Rice 1997, 

pp. 216-21. 

10 The inventory of 1639 following the death of his 
wife, Virginia de Vezzo, in 1638 (Briere and Lamy 
1953, P-143) describes the painting as “une gloire 
d’anges de six a sept pieds de haut et de cinque 
pieds et demi de large peint sur toile sans chassis 
portant les mistaires de la passion de 
Notre-Seigneur.” Paris 1990-91, p. 153, notes that 
the dimensions of the modello in the 1639 
inventory agree with the size of the altarpiece. 

11 Schleier 1972, pp. 91-92. 

12 Malgouyres 2011, pp. 78-80. 

13 Schleier 1972, p. 91. 


14 First identified in Crelly 1962, pp. 247-48 and 
151-52, no. 10, fig. 23. 

15 In the early eighteenth century, mosaic 
reproductions were also made of altarpieces 
painted by other artists, including Lanfranco, 
Poussin, and Valentin, for Saint Peter’s. Bianchi’s 
original painting The Immaculate Virgin Adored by 
Saints is now in Santa Maria degli Angeli, Rome. 
See Clark 1964, p. 46, fig. 62b. Schleier 1968, p. 
573, suggests Bianchi’s mosaic may not have been 
installed until 1749, the year the Pietd was 
removed and transferred to its present location 
in the Cappella della Pieta. 

12 Vouet (back to entry) 

1 In the ninth century vita eremitica, her biography 
was assimilated to that of Mary of Egypt, a 
repentant prostitute and ascetic. According to this 
account, she fled to the desert after the ascension 
and survived without food for thirty years, and 
with only her long hair for covering. 

2 See Boston 1999, pp. 116-20. 

3 Nantes-Besangon 2008-9, no. 14, painted in tones 
of brown and white, is probably the earliest 
treatment of the subject by Vouet. Crelly (1962, p. 
58), who does not mention the monochrome 
version, suggests that a lost early Italian-period 
version of the FaintingMagdalen, a subject the 
artist treated post-Italy in Paris, represents the 
Magdalen overcome by her devotion to Christ 
rather than penitent. Known only by an 
engraving, the lost painting is considered by 
Crelly to be Vouet’s earliest representation of the 
Magdalen. 

4 Crelly 1962, no. 140. 

5 Other paintings of the Magdalen by Vouet in Italy 
represent her in a narrative context with other 
figures. In An Angel Explaining the Divine Mysteries, 
ca. 1621 (private collection, Rome; Nantes- 
Besangon 2008-9, no. 29), the penitent Magdalen, 
with her robes dropped below her waist and her 
chest covered only by her long hair, listens to an 
angel standing next to her. 

6 Brejon de Lavergnee 1982, p. 686. 

7 Nantes-Besangon 2008-9, p-167, no. 51; and 
Brejon de Lavergnee 1982, p. 689. 

8 Nantes-Besangon 2008-9, no. 49. 


52 


Seventeenth Century 









Eighteenth 

Century 


54 


13 

Beaufort 

56 

14 

Berthelemy 

58 

15 

Boilly 

60 

16 

Boilly 

62 

17 

Boucher 

64 

18 

Boucher 

66 

19 

Brenet 

68 

20 

Chardin 

70 

21 

Deshays 

72 

22 

Desportes 

74 

23 

Doyen 

76 

24 

Galloche 

78 

25 

Halle 

80 

26 

Houdon 

82 

27 

Jouvenet 

86 

28 

LegrosII 

88 

29 

Lemoyne 

90 

30 

Lethiere 

92 

31 

Loo 

94 

32 

Loo 

96 

33 

Loo 

98 

34 

Menageot 

IOO 

35 

Natoire 

102 

36 

Pajou 

104 

37 

Regnault 

106 

38 

Restout 

108 

39 

Robert 

HO 

40 

Sablet 

112 

41 

Sablet 

114 

42 

Saint-Ours 

116 

43 

Subleyras 

us 

44 

Subleyras 

120 

45 

Suvee 

122 

46 

Valenciennes 

124 

47 

Vien 

126 

48 

Vincent 

128 

49 

Watteau 

130 


Notes to entries 13-49 

132 







13 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Jacques-Antoine 

Beaufort 

(1721, Paris-1784, Rueil) 


The Oath of Brutus, ca. 1771 
Oil on canvas, 25% x 31% in. 
(65.7x80.3 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.18 



56 


Eighteenth Century 


L ACMA’s sketch is a preliminary study for The Oath of 
Brutus (Musee de la Faience et des Beaux-Arts, Nevers, 
inv. no. NP 205), Jacques-Antoine Beaufort’s recep¬ 
tion piece for the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, 
Paris. When it was exhibited at the Salon of 1771, the livret 
described the subject as “Brutus, Lucretius, the father of 
Lucretia, and Collatinus, her husband, vowing on the 
dagger with which she [Lucretia] has killed herself to 
avenge her death and to drive the Tarquins from Rome.” 
Beaufort drew inspiration for the painting from the tragic, 
iconic story from the last days of the kings of Rome, as told 
in Livy’s Ab urbecondita (1.57-59). 1 

The reign of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was one of 
cruelty and tyranny. His son Sextus Tarquinius—a violent, 
cowardly man—viciously assaulted the Roman noble¬ 
woman Lucretia, claiming he had been provoked by her 
beauty and purity. After her attack Lucretia summoned her 
father, Spurius Lucretius, and her husband, Tarquinius 
Collatinus, who brought with him his friend Brutus from 
the battlefield. Lucretia revealed her shame to her family 
and promptly identified her attacker. Despite their 
attempts to console her, Lucretia, preferring death to 
dishonor, produced a knife and plunged it into her heart. 
Brutus drew the bloody knife from her body and vowed to 
avenge her death by driving the Tarquins out of Rome. The 
Tarquins were subsequently expelled, and the Roman 
Republic was established. 

LACMA’s painting is generally considered to be an 
early sketch for the Salon painting. 2 Previous doubts about 
its attribution to Beaufort were dispelled in 1970 by Pierre 
Rosenberg and Antoine Schnapper on the basis of their 
discovery of a more finished sketch in Rouen (private 
collection), which appears to be an intermediary step 
between the LACMA and Nevers paintings, representing a 
movement toward greater austerity and clarity characteris¬ 
tic of Neoclassicism. In the LACMA sketch, Brutus looks up 
and holds out the knife at arm’s length, whereas in the 


Rouen sketch, as in the finished painting, he brandishes the 
knife above his head. 3 By moving Lucretia, who has 
collapsed on her bed, from the foreground in the LACMA 
sketch to the background in the Rouen and Nevers paint¬ 
ings, and by virtually eliminating the voluminous drapery, 
Beaufort clarifies the composition and emphasizes the 
taking of the oath. A third sketch of the subject in reverse 
also appears to be by Beaufort, and it was possibly an inter¬ 
mediary step between the LACMA and Rouen sketches. 4 

Beaufort’s direct source for both the iconography and 
composition was Gavin Hamilton’s The Oath of Brutus, of 
1763-64 (Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, inv. no. 
B1981.25.318), which he probably knew through the 
engraving by Domenico Cunego (1768). Rather than “the 
violent, erotic turmoil of Tarquinius’s rape or the noble 
pathetic resolution of Lucretia’s suicide” preferred by earlier 
artists, Beaufort, like Hamilton, focused on Brutus and the 
moral drama of dishonor and revenge, the public rather 
than private significance of the tragedy. 5 Beaufort’s 
emphasis reflects the growing interest in sober and edifying 
themes that began in France in the 1760s, replacing the 
playful subjects of the Rococo period. Beaufort defines the 
heroic subject in terms of the classical details of costume 
and setting but rejects Hamilton’s friezelike composition. 
This is especially true of the broadly painted sketch at 
LACMA, which retains much of the Rococo period’s 
decorative style and flickering light that Beaufort purged 
from his finished painting. 

Beaufort’s Salon painting was admired by contempo¬ 
rary critics, as well as by artists who appreciated the subject 
of moral decision-making and oath-taking. Most notably, 
Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), who was inspired by 
Hamilton’s painting, was also influenced by Beaufort’s com¬ 
position when he painted Oath of theHoratii, of about 1784 
(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 3692), and The Tennis Court 
Oath, of 1790 (Chateaux de Versailles et de Trianon). 6 AW 


57 
















14 

Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


Jean-Simon Berthelemy A °y in s Gladiator, 1773 

(1743, Laon-1811, Paris) oil on canvas > 40 % x 53 Vi in. 

(102 x 135.9 cm) 

Signed and dated upper left: Berthelemy /1773 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.83.169 



58 


Eighteenth Century 


B orn in Laon, Jean-Simon Berthelemy moved to Paris 
at an early age. About 1758, with the recommenda¬ 
tion and under the patronage of the painter Noel 
Halle (1711-1781), he entered the school of the Royal 
Academy of Painting and Sculpture. After several attempts 
Berthelemy received in 1767 the academy’s Grand Prix, which 
opened the doors to the Ecole des Eleves Proteges for the 
young artist and led him eventually to the French Academy 
in Rome, where he arrived in October 1770. The French 
Academy was then under the direction of Charles-Joseph 
Natoire (1700-1777), who took a keen interest in the young 
painter and wrote positively about his progress in the 
reports he sent regularly to the Royal Academy in Paris. 

Berthelemy was to have a long and successful career 
after his return to France in 1774. Navigating the political 
upheavals of the last days of the French monarchy, the 
Revolution, and the Empire without taking an active 
political role in them as did his contemporary Jacques-Louis 
David (1748-1825), Berthelemy belonged nonetheless to the 
commission of experts sent to Italy in 1796 to establish lists 
of works of art deemed to be worthy of being transferred to 
Paris. Active in the establishment of the Louvre as a national 
museum, Berthelemy, who became an academicien (full 
member of the Royal Academy) in 1781, continued to paint, 
securing numerous commissions, notably for ceiling 
decorations at the Chateau of Fontainebleau and the 
Luxembourg Palace, the seat of the French Senate in Paris, 
among others. Berthelemy’s work eloquently reflects the 
challenges that faced artists in late eighteenth-century 
France and their transition from the precious and decora¬ 
tive style of the pre-Revolutionary days to the more austere 
subjects and images of the Revolution and Empire periods. 

A Dying Gladiator, dated 1773, is the only painting 
traceable to the Roman period of the artist and is one of the 
mandatory paintings pensionnaires at the French Academy 
were required to execute as proof of their progress. 

Teaching at the academy was strictly organized and based 
on the notion that the students’ craft could be learned 
essentially from seeing and copying masterpieces of the 
past. Rome provided a trove of antique sculptures that 


could be copied, although for practical reasons, plaster casts 
were substituted as models in the classrooms. In addition, 
masterpieces of the Renaissance and also, but more seldom, 
of the Baroque were among the models artists were 
required to copy. Raphael was privileged among those 
artists for the quality of his draftsmanship. Drawing from 
the nude model was allowed only when the artist had 
reached a certain level but was essential in order for the 
students to master anatomy and, to a lesser degree, the 
depiction of expressions. 

Studies based on nudes, called academies, were usually 
mere anatomical studies. In this case, however, Berthelemy 
added a sword, a shield, and the base of a column to add 
context to his model, whose leaning head and left shoulder 
and arm are borrowed from the celebrated Hellenistic 
sculpture the BarberiniFaun. The goal may have been to 
demonstrate his ability to tackle more ambitious subjects in 
painting. After inspection by the director of the F rench 
Academy, the academies he judged best were sent to Paris, 
where they were critiqued by members of the Royal 
Academy. This painting was almost certainly one of the 
paintings Natoire described in a letter to the abbe Terray, 
the Surintendant des Batiments du Roi: “I will have the 
honor of sending you three large painted academies, two by 
Berthelemy and one by Suvee, which appear to me to have 
much merit.” 1 Shortly before sending this letter, Natoire 
had written another to Terray, stating: “Mr. Berthelemy, 
painter, has made considerable progress and is in a position 
to take on large works.” 2 The decision to call back an artist 
to Paris, where he was assured to embark upon a successful 
career and to receive royal commissions, was based on the 
promise expressed in such paintings. 

Back in Paris, Berthelemy decided to present the paint¬ 
ing at the 1777 Salon, next to other studies and his major 
composition of the Siege of Calais (location unknown). It 
elicited positive comments. A critic praised the artist’s 
“broad and soft brushstroke,” and the artist Gabriel de Saint- 
Aubin (1724-1780) sketched A Dying Gladiator in the margin 
of his catalogue of the Salon. 3 jpm 


59 















Louis-Leopold Boilly 

(1761, La Bassee-1845, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



Profile of a Young Woman’s Head, 

ca. 1794 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 10 J 4 x 8% in. 
(25.7x22.2 cm) 



The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.33 


60 


Eighteenth Century 


L ouis-Leopold Boilly’s reputation rests on his small- 
scale portraits, such as LACMA’s Portrait of a Lady and 
Portrait of a Gentleman (M.2003.197.1-.2), and genre 
paintings, which capture the everyday lives of the middle 
class during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic 
Empire. Although critics denigrated genre paintings for 
their lack of historically significant figures and events, they 
could not deny the appeal of the popular scenes to the 
public at large. Smoothly painted with a precise attention to 
character, gesture, and expression, Boilly’s paintings reflect 
history painting in their ability to tell stories. Like the 
contemporary society that was his subject, however, 
paintings such as The Entrance to thejardin Turc (J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 2010.11) are composed of 
numerous motifs and stories. Added together, these 
elements compose the whole without being subordinated 
to it as they had been in the eighteenth century. 1 

Boilly responded to the demands of the new art 
market based on the middle class that emerged during the 
last years of the eighteenth century by developing an 
efficient, economical working procedure: in his oil sketches, 
he painted figures of both individuals and groups, which he 
would then use in multiple compositions. For example, 
Profile of a Young Woman’s Head, with the subject’s modestly 
downcast eyes drawing the viewer’s attention to the elegant 
curve of her neck, appears in several of Boilly’s composi¬ 
tions, including A Painter’s Studio (National Gallery of Art, 


Washington, DC, inv. no. 1943.7.1), Family Celebration, of 
about 1803 (Chateau-Musee, Boulogne-sur-Mer, inv. no. 
35L), 2 and The Entrance to thejardin Turc, of 1812. In prepara¬ 
tion for The Entrance to thejardin Turc, Boilly drew at least one 
sketch of the overall composition (J. Paul Getty Museum, 

Los Angeles, inv. no. 2011.22). 3 Differences between it and 
the final painting indicate that his ideas continued to evolve. 
The compositional drawing served as a guide to posing 
individuals and groups of figures for separate oil sketches, 
which he would fit together like a puzzle. For example, 
Boilly painted an oil sketch of the three figures (formerly 
Paul Mellon collection, Upperville, VA) in the immediate 
circle of the young woman in The Entrance to thejardin Turc, 
leaving space to insert her figure, which he had previously 
used for other paintings, into the finished composition. 

Like the seventeenth-century Dutch masters, whose 
genre paintings strongly influenced him, Boilly often 
turned to family members to serve as his models. Rendered 
in oil on paper, LACMA’s freely painted, incomplete sketch 
is typical of these portraits; another is Portrait of One of the 
Sons of Boilly (Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille, inv. no. P398). 
The similarity of Profile of a Young Woman’s Head to a chalk 
drawing by Boilly of his first wife, Marie Madeleine-Joseph 
Desligne (1764-1794) (Chateau-Musee, Boulogne-sur-Mer, 
inv. no. 28L), suggests she may have been the model for this 
profile sketch, aw 


61 












Louis-Leopold Boilly 

(1761, La Bassee-1845, Paris) 


View of a Lake, 1797 

Oil on canvas, 9 x 12 in. (22.9 x 30.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: L. Boilly 1797 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.32 


16 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 



62 


Eighteenth Century 


K nown primarily as a portrait and genre painter, 
Louis-Leopold Boilly exhibited two landscapes at 
the Paris Salon in 1819: Landscape with Figures and 
Animals and Landscape with ltalianateBuildings. Both paint¬ 
ings are now lost. Dated 1797, View of a Lake is Boilly’s only 
extant independent landscape. It is likely, however, that he 
painted many sketches similar to this one for his own 
enjoyment, as well as for use in composing his paintings. 

The fresh, impressionistic quality of LACMA’s 
beautiful, atmospheric sketch suggests Boilly painted it en 
plein air (in the open air). The practice of actually painting in 
oils outdoors directly from nature rather than in the studio 
was new in the late eighteenth century. Although signed 
and dated, Boilly’s painting appears unfinished, a typical 
conceit that seems to celebrate the spontaneity of the sketch 
from nature. 1 Boilly depicts a grove of trees reflected in a 
lake bounded by distant cliffs, but his real subject is light 
and atmosphere. Employing a clean, lucid palette, he deftly 
captures the play of light in the reflections on the water and 
the distant cliffs, softly blurring the forms to suggest the 
presence of a pervasive atmosphere. 


Boilly’s interest in landscape was closely related to his 
work as a portrait painter. Although LACMA’s sketch is not 
known to be related to any specific painting, throughout 
his career, particularly during the Directoire (Nov. 1795- 
Nov. 1799) and Consulate (1799-1804) government regimes, 
Boilly favored portraits in outdoor settings, using the 
romantic landscape surroundings to reflect the mood of his 
sitters. The portraits Monsieur d’Aucourt deSaint-Just and 
Madame d’Aucourt de Saint-Just (Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille, 
inv. nos. P1949, P1950) are typical. In the first a gentleman 
pauses from his work repairing a bridge. He stands against 
a wooded landscape cast in shadow, from which a path 
winds along a sunlit hillside. In the second portrait, a 
woman is dressed in a flowing white gown. Having removed 
her hat, cloak, and one glove, she glances nervously over her 
shoulder, as if expecting to be joined by a companion. The 
shadowy setting, with its subtle play of light and shade, 
contributes to the painting’s intimate, mysterious atmo¬ 
sphere. AW 


63 




















Frangois Boucher 

(1703-1770, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



The Death of Meleager, ca. 1727 
Oil on canvas, 20 14 x 2614 in. 
(51.1 x 66.7 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.12 



64 


Eighteenth Century 


I n Metamorphoses (7.269-525) Ovid relates the story of 
Meleager, the heroic hunter of the Calydonian boar, 
whose death was caused by his mother, Althea. The 
Fates were the keepers of a log that would last the lifespan 
of the hero. When Althea learned that Meleager killed his 
brother, her other son, she stole the log from the Fates and 
furiously threw it into the fire, thus putting an end to her 
own son’s life. 

Several identical versions of the composition appear 
in eighteenth-century sales, usually paired with a scene now 
identified as The YoungPyrrhus Saved after the Dethroning of His 
Father. Two such pairs are kept in the museums of Rennes 
and Clermont-Ferrand, respectively. 1 In addition to the Los 
Angeles version of TheDeath of Meleager, another one is in a 
French private collection. The repetition of the composition, 
and the difference in quality among the different versions, 
brings up questions regarding both the nature of the 
painting and the authorship of these various versions. 
Although called an esquisse since the eighteenth century, the 
present work is not a “sketch” intended to be developed 
into a larger work. Rather, it is a small, finished, and 
spirited painting. Furthermore, it is possible that the 
composition was used in Frangois Boucher’s studio as a 


model to be copied by other artists. This would imply, how¬ 
ever, that the painting was kept by Boucher throughout his 
life, as the painting was executed at a time when Boucher’s 
studio—if it even existed—had few, if any, assistants. 

It is revealing that the composition, while maintaining 
its authorship throughout most of the eighteenth century, 
was at times attributed to other artists, Michel-Francois 
Dandre-Bardon (1700-1785) and Jean-Honore Fragonard 
(1732-1806), in particular. Only recently, through the 
research of Alastair Laing and Pierre Rosenberg, has 
Boucher’s early style been uncovered. 1 

In this painting, the sinuous shapes of the figures and 
the blending of their faces into their elongated and graceful 
bodies recall those typically found in drawings now firmly 
attributed to Boucher in the 1720s. The most important 
group of such drawings, illustrations for Father Gabriel 
Daniel’s Histoire deFrance, formerly attributed to Pierre- 
Jacques Cazes (1676-1754), were, according to Laing, begun 
about 1727 (and published as engravings in 1729), the same 
date that can be assigned to this painting. A drawing for the 
composition was offered at Christie’s, London on 5 July 
2011. 3 JPM 


65 














18 

Frangois Boucher 

(1703-1770, Paris) 

Monument toMignard, ca. 1743 

Oil on canvas, 28 x zz% in. 

(72.4 x57.5 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.11 

Provenance 




Exhibitions 




References 






66 


Eighteenth Century 


F rancois Boucher’s carefully articulated sketch. 
Monument toMignard, is the modello (preparatory 
study) for an engraving representing the tomb of the 
famous French portrait painter Pierre Mignard (1612-1695). 1 
Until the rediscovery of the sketch, an engraving by 
Frangois-Bernard Lepicie (1698-1755) was the only known 
record of the now-destroyed tomb. 

The exact relationship of Boucher’s sketch to the tomb 
by Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne lejeune (1704-1778) is unclear. 

The print is dated 1743, the year the monument was 
completed but before it was installed in the church of the 
Jacobins on the rue Saint-Honore, Paris, in 1744. Thus, 
Boucher’s sketch depicting the romantic tomb in situ, 
dramatically lit so that a shadow, seemingly cast diagonally 
across the back of the chapel to give relief to the monument, 
must be imagined. (Incongruously, the monument is also lit 
from the front.) Boucher may have based his sketch on 
drawings or on a maquette of the sculpture by Lemoyne or, 
possibly, on the completed sculpture before its final 
installation in the church. 2 

It is not surprising that Boucher was asked to record 
Lemoyne’s important funerary work. During the 1740s, 
both the sculptor Lemoyne, who was a portraitist, and 
Boucher were employed by the French king Louis XV. 
Furthermore, Boucher had begun his career as an etcher and 
produced numerous sketches en camaieu (in pinkish-brown 
monochrome), as is the Monument to Mignard, in preparation 
for engravings. LACMA’s collection includes another work 
by Boucher en camaieu, the Project for a Cartouche: An Allegory of 
Minerva, Fame, History, and Faith Overcominglgnorance and Time 
(inv. no. AC1998.148.1), completed about 1727, for an uniden¬ 
tified engraving that was probably intended as a frontispiece 
for a thesis. Engravers preferred to work with monochrome 
sketches, such as these, which render shadows through 
variations in tone. 


Monument to Mignard was originally commissioned in 
1697 by the artist’s daughter Catherine shortly after his 
death. To be completed by the sculptor Jean de Dieu 
(1658-1714), the monument was to represent the mourning 
figure of Painting and various trophies surrounding the 
bust of Mignard by Frangois Girardon (1628-1715). That 
project was abandoned, and in 1735 Mignard’s daughter 
passed the commission to Lemoyne. Monument toMignard 
was finally placed in the church of the Jacobins in 1744. 3 

The tomb, as represented in Boucher’s modello, 
incorporated Girardon’s bust of Mignard and possibly other 
elements from the original project, such as the sarcophagus 
and obelisk. The general concept had, however, changed. 
Succumbing to the demands of Mignard’s daughter, 
Lemoyne’s tomb, originally conceived to glorify the painter 
alone, also became an eternal testament to the beauty and 
devotion of the daughter to her father. Rather than the 
allegorical figure of Painting reclining on the sarcophagus, 
the distraught daughter, in a posture reminiscent of Mary 
Magdalen at the foot of the cross, kneels before the bust of 
her father. In front of her, a small genie embraces a swan, 
symbolizing filial piety, while above, the lead figure of 
Father Time, armed with his scythe, raises the billowing 
drapery. Dismantled during the French Revolution, the 
monument was transported in pieces to the depot at the 
convent of the Petits-Augustins, where all the figures in 
lead and bronze were melted down, leaving Lepicie’s 
engraving and Boucher’s sketch as the only visual records of 
this famous monument. AW 


67 


















Nicolas-Guy Brenet 

(1728-1792, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



AethraShowingHerSon Theseus 
the Place Where His Father Had 
Hidden His Arms, 1768 
Oil on canvas, 19 % x 23 14 in. 

(50.2 x 59.7 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.21 



68 


Eighteenth Century 


P resented to the members of the Royal Academy of 
Painting and Sculpture in 1768 as his proposed 
reception piece, Nicolas-Guy Brenet’s oil sketch 
illustrates an episode from Plutarch’s Life of Theseus (1.3.6), 
which had been depicted by at least two celebrated French 
painters of the seventeenth century, Nicolas Poussin (Musee 
Conde, Chantilly, inv. no. PE300) and Laurent de La Hyre 
(Szepmuveszeti Muzeum, Budapest, inv. no. 693). Aethra, 
daughter of Pittheus, the governor of Troezen, bore a child 
to Aegeus, who, “being desirous of children, and consulting 
with the oracle of Delphi, received the celebrated answer 
which forbade him the company of any woman before his 
return to Athens.” Aegeus related the obscure oracle to 
Pittheus, who “prevailed upon him ... whether by persua¬ 
sion or deceit, to lie with his daughter Aethra.” Aegeus, 
suspecting Aethra to be with child, “left a sword and a pair 
of shoes, hiding them under a great stone that has a hollow 
in it exactly fitting them, and commanded Aethra that “if 
she brought forth a son who, when he came to a man’s 
estate, should be able to lift up the stone and take away 
what he had left there, she should send him to him with 
these things with all secrecy.” The child born to Aethra and 
Aegeus was the hero Theseus. Brenet has represented the 
scene in which “Aethra, conducting him to the stone, and 
revealing the identity of his father, commanded him to take 
from thence the tokens that Aegeus had left.” 

Brenet’s finished painting, now at the Ecole Nationale 
Superieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris, was well received at the 
Salon of 1769, where even the notoriously exacting Denis 


Diderot found it “suavement fait, harmonieux,” in spite of 
the lack of correctness he noticed in the drawing of the 
figure of Theseus and the position of the hero’s mother’s 
arms, which he found uninspired. Although the oil sketch 
had been approved by the Royal Academy, Brenet refined on 
its composition for the picture shown at the Salon, institut¬ 
ing substantial changes. The shift from an oblong to an 
almost square format led him to place the figure of Theseus 
in a more central position, appropriate given the impor¬ 
tance of the hero, and making the narrative more explicit. 
The somewhat unresolved and unfortunate position of 
Theseus in the sketch—crouching in an unconvincing effort 
to lift the rock under which his father has concealed his 
sword—is transformed in the final picture into an effective, 
if theatrical, gesture, that provides a perfect counterpart to 
the hieratic stance of Aethra. Likewise, the substitution of 
an embracing nymph and river god for the more conven¬ 
tional single figure of the river god in the sketch is also a 
welcome change that carries the image into the realm of 
bucolic poetry. In making this alteration, Brenet was 
possibly influenced by such groupings as found in Frangois 
Boucher’s mythological paintings, or the example of 
Venetian artists, particularly Tiepolo, whose nymphs may 
be considered a prototype for Brenet’s. JPM 


69 













Jean-Simeon Chardin 

(1699-1779, Paris) 


Soap Bubbles, probably after 1739 
Oil on canvas, 23% x 28% in. (60 x 73 cm) 

Signed lower right: J. S. chardin 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.79.251 


20 

Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 



70 


Eighteenth Century 


T hree versions of the subject are recognized today, all 
in American museums: the Metropolitan Museum 
of Art, New York, the Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, the 
latter being the only known vertical rendition of the subject. 
Paintings of the subject matter—variously coupled with 
other genre pictures—appear at least six times at Paris 
auctions between 1776 and 1786. The approximate dimen¬ 
sions and descriptions of the paintings in these catalogues 
make the identification of the Los Angeles and New York 
pictures (the two horizontal versions) particularly difficult 
to ascertain. The more recent provenance of the Los Angeles 
picture, leading to its purchase by the museum, has also 
been subject to speculation. At the time of its sale at auction 
in 1973—as a work after Jean-Simeon Chardin—it was 
rumored to belong or to have belonged to the Toulouse- 
Lautrec family. This provenance was mentioned, for 
instance, by Pierre Rosenberg in his entry on the painting 
for the exhibition held in Ferrara and Madrid in 2010-11, 

(see Exhibitions). 

A letter about the painting in the curatorial file, 
written by Claus Virch, who sold the painting to Kenneth 
Donahue, then director of the museum, mentions a former 
letter that contained important information on the 
painting’s provenance. That letter has disappeared, but its 
content has been preserved in the archives of the Registrar’s 
Office. It lists the previous owners of the painting, accord¬ 
ing to a member of the Toulouse-Lautrec family. This 
document excludes from the painting’s provenance the 
collection of Philippe de Kerhallet, mentioned tentatively 
by Rosenberg and based on a document in the Musee du 
Louvre’s Documentation Department. 

More speculations and mysteries swirl around the 
painting, and they have fueled an abundant literature 
devoted to its date, its relationship to the other versions, 
and its meaning. One certain fact is that Chardin exhibited 
a painting of the subject at the 1739 Salon and that, accord¬ 
ing to tradition, it would have been the one engraved by 
Pierre Filloeuf (1696-after 1754). The engraving, however, 
does not correspond exactly to any of the three versions and 
may suggest the existence of a fourth, vertical, one. 


More conjectural yet is the date of the painting. 
Pierre-Jean Mariette, in 1749, wrote that Chardin’s first genre 
painting was, in fact, such a bubble blower, although his 
opinion was challenged by other contemporary sources. The 
first known and dated genre painting by Chardin is Woman 
Sealing a Letter (1733; Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin), 
a painting that uses the same model for the servant as for 
the bubble blower. Based upon this, the various versions 
of Soap Bubbles have usually been dated to 1734, even though 
it is hardly imaginable that the artist would execute three 
versions of the same painting in a single year. 

The popularity of the theme also remains unexplained, 
as so little is known about Chardin’s patrons. It has been 
argued that Chardin was adding here to the tradition of 
vanitas painting, which in seventeenth-centuiy France and 
Flanders, in particular, often features the image of a putto 
blowing bubbles. This again is highly speculative, as the 
image of the artist as a peintre moraliste is foreign to the more 
convincing persona of Chardin as a painter of reality. 
Removed from the vanitas context, the painting may indeed 
acquire another, more literal meaning. As argued by 
Franees Terpak, Sir Isaac Newton’s Opticks (1704) had achieved 
substantial fame in eighteenth-century Paris. In that 
treatise, Terpak comments, “Newton acknowledged that his 
observations of soap bubbles had contributed to the 
development of his theory of colors,” thus “Chardin’s youth 
could be studying the bubble’s iridescent diaphanous 
surface for the complex succession of colors recorded by 
Newton.” 1 

This reading of the painting’s meaning may be 
reinforced if one considers, as Terpak does, that a Soap 
Bubbles painting has often been paired with pictures of a girl 
playing knucklebones and looking upward with amaze¬ 
ment as the ball she threw in the air is about to obey the law 
of gravitation. Without paying literal homage to Newton’s 
theories, Chardin here may well represent a young man 
neither futilely amusing himself nor reflecting upon 
destiny, but instead exploring nature in a direct and playful 
manner, jpm 


71 












21 

Jean-Baptiste Deshays 

(1729, Rouen-1765, Paris) 

Scene from the Martyrdom of Saint 
Andrew (Saint Andrew, Brought by 

His Tormentors, Refuses to Worship 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.19 

Provenance 


thePagan Gods), 1758 


Exhibitions 


Oil on canvas, 21% x 11% in. 


References 


(54.3 x 29.8 cm) 




72 


Eighteenth Century 


T he three paintings dedicated to the martyrdom of 
Saint Andrew, commissioned for the church of 
Saint-Andre-de-la-Ville in Rouen, rank among the 
most celebrated works of Jean-Baptiste Deshays. In 1754 
Deshays had arrived in Rome to fulfill his curriculum at the 
French Academy. The correspondence of the then-director, 
Charles-Joseph Natoire, describes a studious pensionnaire, 
prompt at accomplishing the requisite drawings and 
painted studies that were sent periodically to Paris to be 
judged by members of the Royal Academy of Painting and 
Sculpture. These were generally well accepted despite some 
academicians’ remarks about the artist’s liberal use of red and 
a certain dry harshness in his handling of lights and 
shadows. 1 It was probably while still a student in Rome, 
although close to his return to Paris in 1757, that Deshays 
received the ofFer to provide three large compositions for 
the church. This was not entirely unusual, as it was 
expected from gifted students, already well known in 
France, to quickly set to work upon their return home. In 
this case the commission came, not from Paris, but from 
Rouen, Deshays’s native city, a provincial but rich center 
that could also boast having contributed such painters as 
Jean Jouvenet and Jean Restout, famous in eighteenth-cen¬ 
tury France. 

The three scenes to be represented were taken directly 
from Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend: the saint’s 
flagellation, his refusal to sacrifice to the pagan gods, and, 
finally, his burial. The most dramatic of the three, the 
refusal scene, was to be the centerpiece of the triptych. It 
was the first painting Deshays executed. Freshly arrived 
from Rome, Deshays was still haunted by the examples he 
had seen (and probably had to copy) of the frescoes of 
Domenichino and Mattia Preti in San Andrea della Valle, 


Rome, in particular, and he signed his composition Deshays 
L[e] Rjomain]. In September 1758 Deshays submitted his 
finished painting to the academy in order to be agree, the 
first step on the path to become a full-fledged academician. 
(In 1760 he presented his second composition for the cycle, 
the Burial of Saint Andrew, as his entry in the hope of 
obtaining the coveted position of adjunct professor.) The 
painting was exhibited in front of a larger public when 
included in the 1759 Salon, where it met with success. Denis 
Diderot, however, only remarked laconically that he could 
not form an opinion, the painting being hung too high. 
Nonetheless, the composition remained famous, and as late 
as 1795, when the taste for painting had taken another 
direction, Charles Le Carpentier wrote that it could “be 
considered the artist’s masterpiece,” admiring its colors, 
drawing (“un dessein male”), and execution. 2 

As expected, Deshays executed many preparatory 
studies for the painting, including individual studies of 
heads or figures, and one for the whole composition, now at 
the Albertina in Vienna. 3 That latter drawing is quite close 
to the Los Angeles sketch. Both, however, differ from the 
finished painting, in which the saint faces the idol he 
refuses to worship. In the Vienna drawing and the Los 
Angeles sketch. Saint Andrew faces the cross to which he is 
to be nailed and turns his back toward the statue of the 
pagan god. The pinks and light tones of the sketch gave way 
to a more golden and strongly contrasted atmosphere in the 
large composition. Philippe Louis Parizeau’s engraving of 
the composition was not made after the finished picture, 
but rather from the sketch. In most likelihood this was the 
Los Angeles sketch, which Deshays kept for himself and was 
sold for the first time at the artist’s sale following his 
premature death, jpm 


73 















22 

Provenance 

Alexandre-Francois 

Desportes 

(1661, Champigneulles-1743, Paris) 

Dog Pointing Partridges Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

in a Landscape, 1719 AC1993.39.1 

Oil on canvas, 44 x 56% in. (112 x 144 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: Desportes 1719 

Exhibitions 



References 



Technical report 





74 


Eighteenth Century 


D ogPointingPartridges in a Landscape, signed and dated 
1719, is a superior example of the many portraits of 
hunting dogs in landscapes that made Alexandre- 
Francois Desportes one of the most sought-after animal 
painters in Europe in the eighteenth century. What set the 
French painter apart from his peers was his skill in portray¬ 
ing not only the physical appearance but also the psycho¬ 
logical condition of the animals through their physical pose. 
Here, with tail taut, legs stiff, and mouth tense, a hunting 
dog freezes in place as he fixes his eyes on two unsuspecting 
partridges hiding behind a tree. 

Placed in the foreground against a wooded glen and a 
deep, misty landscape, the life-size animals appear to share 
the viewer’s space. The startling immediacy of the image 
clearly appealed to Desportes’s patrons, who would have 
recognized the familiar pose of the dog. Bred to quietly 
locate, stalk, and flush out partridges and other birds that 
nest on the ground and live among the high grasses and 
bushes, pointers were prized working companions of the 
aristocracy. 

Desportes first painted these types of dog portraits for 
the royal hunting lodge at Chateau de Marly. As painter to 
Louis XIV (1638-1715), Desportes often accompanied the 
king to the hunt. Riding in the royal carriage to which the 
king was confined during his lastyears because of his ill 
health, Desportes captured the movements of animals in 
black chalk drawings in a small sketchbook. Desportes’s 
many chalk drawings and oil sketches reveal his continuous 
study of dogs and birds from life. Back in the studio, 
Desportes developed the details of the drawings, informed 
by his study of animal anatomy and the many hours he 
spent in menageries, markets, and kennels. His study of 
dogs in action clearly informed the paintings in which he 
orchestrates the movement of the dogs and birds in 
convincing compositions. 

In both 1702 and 1714, Desportes painted a series of 
large-format compositions of dogs, the first set capturing 
dogs in action (Bonne, Nome, and PonneHaltingbefore Some 
Partridge; Musee de la Chasse et de la Nature, Paris, inv. no. 

P. 414), and the second, representing the king’s favorite dogs 
in characteristic poses, such as in the LACMA painting. 
Inspired by the Flemish hunting scenes of Paul de Vos 
(1591-92 or 1595-1678) and others, they were destined to be 
placed in an antechamber of the king’s apartment at 
Chateau de Marly, which served as his private escape from 
the activity of Versailles. Although access to Marly was 
extremely limited, the portraits were apparently well 
known. Replicas of the king’s paintings were desired not 


only for the clear light and graceful tension of the dogs but 
also for their association with royal taste and the noble 
privilege of hunting. 1 After the death of the king in 1715, 
Desportes produced numerous paintings of single dogs. 
Rather than portraits of individual dogs in identifiable 
landscapes, however, they probably represent generic dogs 
and landscapes based on his many drawings. 

DogPointingPartridges in aLandscape, dated 1719, 
particularly recalls Desportes’s portrait of the king’s dog, 
Zette Stopped before Two Partridges (1714.; Musee de la Chasse et 
de la Nature, Paris, inv. no. 3915 ) 2 and is an example of the 
pictures Desportes produced for noblemen and the landed 
gentry. As in the portrait painted for the king, in LACMA’s 
painting a handsome pointer freezes in the foreground of a 
landscape when he spots the two birds in the grass next to a 
tree. Although Desportes may have included the birds pri¬ 
marily as a pretext for representing the dog’s tense posture, 
his careful study of the physical appearance and character of 
the two partridges is evident. A drawing of a crouching 
partridge is known in two versions (Musee International de 
la Chasse, Gien, France, inv. no. P285; and private collection) 
and undoubtedly served as the model for the bird in the 
foreground of LACMA’s painting. It is the bird farther back, 
however, that reveals the artist’s keen observation of the 
behavior of the birds, as well as his ability to create narra¬ 
tive tension through its posture. Stretching its neck to look 
around the tree, the curious bird appears to sense danger 
but remains ignorant of the dog on the other side. 

In addition to Desportes’s concern for the accurate 
description of dogs is his detailed observation and depic¬ 
tion of local vegetation. Louis XIV was said to have enjoyed 
being able to recognize not only his favorite dogs but also 
the landscapes and details of plants depicted in Desportes’s 
paintings, often with the help of his botanist M. Fagon. In 
DogPointingPartridges in a Landscape, Desportes complements 
the posture of the dog with the tenacious grapevine that 
winds around the trunk of the tree and draws attention to 
the sheltering partridge with the carefully observed yellow 
broom plant at the base of the tree. An invasive plant, the 
broom plant typically grows, as here, on the edge of the 
forest. Desportes may have referred to an oil sketch on paper 
made from life for the detail of the plant, which often 
appears in his paintings of dogs (Manufacture Nationale, 
Sevres, inv. no. P111, no. 44)7 His attention to details of 
nature is perhaps reflected in the fact that Desportes, who 
had entered the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture 
as an animal painter in the Flemish tradition of hunting 
scenes, later became a still-life specialist. AW 


75 













23 

Gabriel-Francois Doyen 

(1726, Paris-1806, Saint Petersburg) 

The Russian Nobility Offering 

the Imperial Princes to Minerva, ca. 1794 

Oil on canvas, 37% x 28 in. 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.20 

Provenance 


(94.9x71.1 cm) 


Exhibitions 




References 






76 


Eighteenth Century 


T his large sketch is a study for a commission from the 
grand duke Paul, later Paul I, czar of Russia (1754- 
1801), for a ceiling painting intended to be installed 
in the cabinet of Catherine II, the Great (1729-1796) at St. 
Michael’s Castle, Saint Petersburg. According to Marc 
Sandoz, who was unaware of this sketch, the commission 
was given to Gabriel-Francois Doyen before 1796. 1 Following 
the assassination of Paul I in 1801, the ceiling was trans¬ 
ferred to the Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, where it was first 
on view in the Gallery of Minerals. Since 1850 it has been 
displayed in the so-called Escalier du Conseil, now the main 
staircase of the museum. According to Heinrich Christoph 
von Reimers, the painting was left unfinished by Doyen. 2 In 
his history of the Winter Palace (now the Hermitage), A. V. 
Suslov identified the subject as “the Russian nobility 
personified by a warrior presenting on a shield its children 
to Minerva (possibly an allusion to the grandsons of 
Catherine II: Alexander and Constantine); Abundance, 
personifying the wealth of the State, is at the children’s feet; 
in the background one sees a fully armed heroic figure 
surrounded by History and Time, writing the annals of the 
State, and Renown announcing them to the world.” 3 


Doyen left Paris for Russia in 1792 after dutifully 
asking Louis XVI for his permission (in one of the last 
official documents signed by the king) in order to accept the 
title of First Painter of the Empress and Associate Director 
of the Imperial Academy for a period of three years. Doyen, 
however, remained in Russia until his death fourteen years 
later, having been forced into permanent exile by the 
political changes in France. His warm reception in Russia, 
first by Catherine herself, and the subsequent support he 
received from her son Paul I, must have compensated the 
artist for the flagging interest and harsh criticisms his 
works had received in France prior to his departure. His 
compositions were considered by many confused and 
indecipherable, and his colors, artificial. Indeed, by the late 
1770s, Parisian taste had little tolerance for the kind of late 
Rubenism Doyen practiced. In Russia, however, his style 
was still largely acceptable and particularly suitable to 
Paul I’s conservative taste. Sandoz has identified a drawing 
of an allegory of Catherine II in the Hermitage Museum’s 
collection as a first idea for the imperial commission, 4 but 
no solid evidence corroborates this assertion, jpm 


77 












24 

Louis Galloche 

(1670-1761, Paris) 

Saint Martin Sharing His Coat 
with a Beggar, ca. 1737 

Oil on canvas, 15 Vs x 10 3 /s in. 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.7 

Provenance 


(39.7 x 26.4 cm) 


Exhibitions 


Saint Martin Kneeling in Front 
of an Eremitic Monk, ca. 1737 

Oil on canvas, 15 s /s x 10% in. 
(39.7x26.4 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.8 



78 


Eighteenth Century 


T he story of Saint Martin, a soldier in the Roman 

army, sharing his cloak with a beggar (who turned 
out to be Christ), was one of the most popular 
images in medieval art. This particular subject of an act of 
charity was treated less frequently in the following centu¬ 
ries. Anthony van Dyck, however, represented it, 
appropriately enough, for his large painting in the church 
of Saint Martin at Zaventem (ca. 1620). Louis Galloche, who 
admonished his students to study Italian and Northern 
masters, may have derived his composition from Flemish 
examples. It is, for instance, especially close to a small 
sketch attributed to Jan Boeckhorst (1605-1668) in the 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. 1 

The subject of its pendant is somewhat mysterious. It 
cannot be a meeting of Saint Hubert and Saint Lambert as 
described in the 1972 Galerie Joseph Hahn catalogue and 
should logically represent an episode in the life of Saint 
Martin. Martin has now left the imperial army (a horseback 
rider in the background may allude to his military past). 
Tempted by the solitary life of eremitic monks, Martin 


settled for a while on the island of Gellinaria (now Albenga). 
The painting could represent his meeting a kindred spirit 
upon his arrival on the island or perhaps a later episode in 
his life. About 361 he established a hermitage near Tours, 
which attracted a large community of monks who followed 
a strict rule based on the ascetic life of early Christians in 
the desert. This became the large Abbey of Liguge. 

The work of Galloche, an important but somewhat 
neglected painter, deserves to be better known. His life, 
written by his eighteenth-century biographer, the abbe 
Gougenot (1719-1767), and published in 1856, remains our 
main source of knowledge on the artist. 2 Gougenot 
provided a brief catalogue of Galloche’s work. The LACMA 
sketches are not included in it, but Gougenot mentions two 
paintings devoted to the life of Saint Martin. 3 It is tempting 
to believe that the two mentioned by Gougenot and 
LACMA’s two paintings were part of a single commission, 
probably from a religious order. There are three drawings at 
the Musee du Louvre, Paris, for the figure of Saint Martin on 
horseback. 4 jpm 


79 













Noel Halle 

(1711-1781, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



Saint Anne Revealing to the Virgin 
the Prophecy of Isaiah, ca. 1749 
Oil on canvas, 24% x 16 14 in. 

(62.5 x 41.3 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.16 



80 


Eighteenth Century 


W ith its blank cartouche and elaborate ornaments, 
the sketch is clearly a finished study intended to 
be engraved. Indeed, the composition was first 
engraved by Etienne Fessard (1714-1777) in 1749 and 
reissued in 1760 and 1766. 1 It had been commissioned by the 
confraternity of the master carpenters of Paris, whose seat 
was in the church of the Carmelite Fathers of the Billettes. 

Confraternities were religious associations often, but 
not necessarily, based on professional associations or guilds. 
Each confraternity was placed under the patronage of a 
saint. Most confraternities (which were suppressed during 
the French Revolution and reappeared in the nineteenth 
century) maintained a dedicated chapel in a church, orga¬ 
nized religious observances, and issued broadsheets and 
devotional prints. Early examples of these latter can be con¬ 
sidered popular imagery. Increasingly, however, celebrated 
artists were invited to provide images. The confraternity of 
the master carpenters included famous and successful 
artisans whose social status was elevated and whose 
economic means consequently enabled them to secure the 
participation of established artists, such as Noel Halle. 


The iconography of this work alludes directly to the 
confraternity. Besides the decorative putti surrounded by 
planes, squares, and other tools of the carpenters’ trade, the 
central image does not illustrate, as previously thought, the 
common subject of the education of the Virgin, but rather 
Saint Anne teaching the young Virgin to read and under¬ 
stand Isaiah’s prophecy that she would become the mother 
of God’s son. 2 In that Mary was the temporary receptacle of 
the son of God, she was thus considered the first of the 
tabernacles, albeit a living one, that the carpenters were 
asked to build. Just as she had carried Jesus in her body, the 
tabernacles “house” the Host, that is, the body of Christ. 
Such far-fetched interpretations were not unusual among 
the reasons invoked to justify the selection of a specific 
patron saint. 

Oil sketches intended as models for engravings are 
often executed in grisaille, not only for economic reasons, 
but also to guide more closely the engraver’s task. Halle, by 
contrast, displays not only his mastery of elegant and 
well-balanced compositions but also his talent as one of the 
finest colorists of his generation, jpm 


81 































26 


Jean-Antoine Houdon 

(1741, Versailles-1828, Paris) 


Provenance 

References 


Seated Voltaire, ca. 1779-before 1828 
Plaster with metal supports, 
traces of dark greenish-blue paint, 
54 x 28 x 37 in. (137.2 x 71.1 x 94 cm) 



Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2004.5 


82 


Eighteenth Century 


V oltaire (pen name of Frangois-Marie Arouet; 

1694-1778) is best known today as the author of 
Candide (1759), a picaresque novel that satirized 
mindlessly unrealistic optimism. He was one of France’s 
most influential philosophers and literary craftsmen. 
Equally considered a defiant wit, reprobate, heretic, 
courageous defender of the unjustly accused, and hero of 
the Enlightenment, Voltaire was imprisoned twice in the 
Bastille and was exiled, formally and informally, three or 
four times. He ridiculed religious dogmas and condemned 
the feckless cruelty of autocratic rulers and the hypocrites 
who were their lackeys. Catherine the Great, who carried on 
a voluminous correspondence with Voltaire, esteemed him 
above all other thinkers of their day. 

In 1770, when Voltaire was seventy-six, his admirers 
sent the sculptor Jean-Baptiste Pigalle (1714-1785) to 
Voltaire’s retreat near Geneva to create a full-length portrait 
of him. The format attested to the subject’s fame: rarely was 
a living commoner portrayed in the formula that tradition¬ 
ally honored royalty, deities, or deceased heroes. 1 Voltaire 
had resisted, claiming that he was too thin and old to be a 
suitable subject. In a hilarious and self-deprecating 
description, the playwright protested that his skin hung 
from his cheekbones like sheets of dry parchment and that 
he no longer had eyes but pits that had sunk to the back of 
his head instead. Of the few teeth he ever had, the remain¬ 
ing ones were now gone, he wrote. 2 The result of Pigalle’s 
effort—a naked, full-length seated figure of the scrawny 
writer (fig. 7)—was roundly condemned as a failure. 3 The 
most successful portrait, the one that has endured, was 
created almost a decade later by Jean-Antoine Houdon. 

In February 1778, at the age of eighty-four, after 
almost thirty years’ absence from Paris, Voltaire returned 
triumphantly to the French capital from his retreat near 
Geneva for the production of his play Irene. He agreed to sit 
for Houdon, who completed a marble bust by 16 April. The 
portrait caused a sensation: “All Paris goes to Monsieur 
Houdon’s studio to see a bust of Monsieur Voltaire that is 
without question the closest likeness of all the portraits ever 
done of this patriarch.” 4 Catherine the Great knew of it, and 
on 13 April she expressed her wish to have a bust of 
Voltaire. 5 Six weeks later, on 30 May, Voltaire succumbed to 
illness and hemorrhage brought on by the very celebrations 
held in his honor. 

On 8 November 1778 Catherine the Great learned that 
Voltaire’s niece, his constant companion for twenty-five 
years, had ordered a life-size seated portrait of Voltaire in 
marble from Houdon. 6 Originally destined for the 
Academie Frangaise, it went instead to the Comedie- 
Frangaise. The empress commissioned a marble example for 


herself, which is now in the State Hermitage Museum, Saint 
Petersburg (fig. 8). Houdon conceived the basic composition 
by 1779, when he showed a gilt-bronze seated figure, less 
than a foot high, in the Salon that year. 7 He completed a 
full-scale plaster model in February 1780; it is believed to be 
the example, signed in script, in the Bibliotheque Nationale 
de France. The marble example that was carved for 
Voltaire’s niece was exhibited in the Salon of 1781, and 
Catherine the Great’s example, bearing the date 1781, was 
presumably carved then, although it was not delivered until 
1784. 8 

The empress of Russia commissioned more than one 
portrait of the philosopher she idolized from the sculptor 
who was the greatest portraitist of the eighteenth century. 
Not surprisingly, she owned portraits of Voltaire by Houdon 
in various media, for Houdon worked in terracotta, marble, 
plaster, and bronze. Indeed, he prided himself on being the 
only major French sculptor of his time who could cast his 
own sculptures in bronze. In the technique of marble 
carving, Houdon was without peer. He produced illusions 
in stone that had not been seen since the time of Gian 
Lorenzo Bernini. 

Moreover, Houdon was one of the few sculptors for 
whom plaster was no longer simply an ancillary material for 
preparatory sketches or models to be copied into marble. 
Instead, in Houdon’s hands, plaster was worthy of finished 
works of art. Intractable yet versatile, Parisian plaster had 
been appreciated at least since the time that Benvenuto 
Cellini wrote admiringly of it in the sixteenth century, but 
Houdon exploited it as few others had. From Houdon’s 
molds emerged plaster sculptures of an astonishing degree 
of refinement and beauty, and the crispness rendered in wet 
plaster of details like eyelids, lace, and strands of hair often 
surpasses the same features carved in marble. Furthermore, 
Houdon was one of the earliest, perhaps indeed the first, 
sculptor who promoted the diffusion of his work by produc¬ 
ing multiples in plaster. One of his clients, the actress 
Sophie Arnould, for example, ordered thirty plaster copies 
of her portrait from him (with the option of Houdon pro¬ 
ducing even more for her), 9 and Houdon’s portrait of George 
Washington was so popular that in 1804 Houdon was asked 
to consider producing as many as two hundred copies of it. 10 

Houdon was born at Versailles into the family of the 
concierge of the royal school for gifted art students. He is 
said to have created sculptures by the age of nine; by twenty 
he won the Rome Prize from the Royal Academy of Painting 
and Sculpture. Eschewing the decorative frothiness favored 
by most of his contemporaries, Houdon combined the 
harmonious restraint of classical sculptures with realistic 
naturalism. He was renowned for the astonishing accuracy 


83 














of the life-size anatomical study he created while still in 
Rome (1767). Disfavored personally by the French officials 
who awarded lucrative public commissions, Houdon 
instead found most of his work privately, creating portraits 
in France, the German princely courts, Russia, and the 
United States. Over the course of a long life, Houdon 
captured the divergent characters of French aristocrats 
under the reigns of Louis XV and XVI, as well as the heroes 
of the American War for Independence. He survived the 
Terror (citing his contributions in the study of anatomy and 
the training of craftsmen in his studio) and went on to carve 
portraits of Napoleon. Thomas Jefferson insisted that 
Houdon was the most important sculptor in Europe and 
the only artist worthy and capable of creating the monu¬ 
ment to George Washington. It was Houdon who conceived 
our abiding images of Washington and Jefferson—and of 
Benjamin Franklin, the marquis de Lafayette, Robert 
Fulton, and John Paul Jones. Their images were diffused 
through copies, both licit and illicit. 

It is therefore reasonable to expect that the Seated 
Voltaire would not be unique. Many small reductions exist. 
More remarkably, however, Houdon even made several 
life-size examples of the Seated Voltaire. Besides the two 
marble versions already mentioned, terracotta casts are in 
the Musee Fabre in Montpellier 11 and the Voltaire Institute 
in Geneva, a variant that features a stack of books beneath 
the chair. A papier-mache copy in the Bibliotheque 
Municipale in Rouen was crafted in 1791 for the memorial 
procession that carried Voltaire’s body to the Pantheon in 
Paris; like the example in Los Angeles, the papier-mache 
version includes a skirt of fabric that encloses the void 
under the chair. Three versions in plaster are known: in 
addition to the present example and the one in the 
Bibliotheque Nationale de France, there was another in the 
Coty collection, which was auctioned in 1936 (now unlo¬ 
cated but illustrated in the auction catalogue). One of these 
plaster examples must be the one that was in the collection 
of Le Pelletier de Mortefontaine in Paris in 1787. 


Mold lines in the examples in Montpellier and Los 
Angeles are identical, and the same sections can be dis¬ 
cerned in photographs of the Coty example. The main 
sections are defined by lines that run horizontally across the 
chest, just below the knees, and a few inches above the 
ankles. The three sculptures must therefore all have been 
produced from the same molds 12 that Houdon carefully 
guarded against counterfeiting: 13 Hector Sonolet, the 
director of the academy at Carrara, wrote (1807), “When 
Houdon made his busts of Voltaire and Rousseau, he did 
not prohibit other artists from copying them in marble, but 
he sold each plaster for too louis, prohibiting the artists 
from making molds from them for production of copies.” 14 
No mold was listed among the sculptures in Houdon’s two 
inventories, except for that of the anatomical study of 1767. 
The price of the mold included the right to reproduce the 
sculpture. 15 

The monument to Voltaire is justifiably called 
Houdon’s masterpiece. 16 In just a few days of modeling the 
bust in 1778, Houdon caught the essence of the man who, 
his mourners would proclaim, had “prepared us to become 
free.” 17 The limited sittings were disturbed by Voltaire’s 
weakness and impatience, but Houdon seized the expres¬ 
sion in an instant when Voltaire became elated upon seeing 
his honorific laurel-crown from the Corned ie-Frangaisc 
brought to the sculptor’s studio in a planned surprise. 18 For 
the full-scale monument, however, Houdon was working 
without the living man before him. The sculptor neverthe¬ 
less created a vibrant likeness sparkling with vitality. The 
sinewy hands seem to tremble, too stimulated to rest. 
Although immersed in a great robe, his head banded by the 
honorific ribbon reserved for the immortalization of poets 
in ancient Greece, Voltaire appears before us as if still alive, 
momentarily interrupted in one of his trenchant but 
amusing thoughts, his mischievous eyes sparkling with wit, 
his face animated by what Kenneth Clark called “the smile 
of reason.” 19 Voltaire’s brilliant personality, communicated 
to us by Houdon’s monument, by itself embodies the 
contradictory paradoxes of the age in which he lived, ml 


84 


Eighteenth Century 




Fig-7 


Fig. 8 


Fig. 7 Jean-Baptiste Pigalle, Voltaire Nude, 1776. 
Marble, 59 x 35 x 30% in. (150 x 89 x 77 cm). 

Musee du Louvre, Paris (inv. no. Ent. 1962.1) 

Fig. 8 Jean-Antoine Houdon, Voltaire, 1781. Marble, 
Height: 54% in. (138 cm). The State Hermitage 
Museum, St. Petersburg, acquired by Catherine the 
Great in the 1780s (inv. no. H.cK-9) 


85 


Houdon, Seated Voltaire 





27 

Jean Jouvenet 

(1644, Rouen-1717, Paris) 

The Raising of Lazarus, ca. 1711 

Oil on canvas, 39 Vz x 63 J 4 in. 

(99.4 x 161.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.4 

Provenance 




Exhibitions 




References 






86 


Eighteenth Century 


J ean Jouvenet’s sketch TheRaisingofLazarus is closely 
related to a monumental painting of the same subject at 
the Musee du Louvre, Paris. When the Louvre painting 
was exhibited at the Salon of 1704, Jouvenet’s dramatic 
composition prompted the author of the livret to exclaim, 
“Quelle vie! Quels regards! Quelle force d’expression!” (What 
life! What expressions! What passion!). Indeed, Jouvenet’s 
successful composition marks this once-forgotten artist as a 
major figure in French painting at the turn of the eigh¬ 
teenth century. 

LACMA’s sketch, like the Salon painting, depicts one 
of the most dramatic stories in the Bible (John 11:1-44). 
Lazarus, brother to Martha and Mary, had been dead four 
days when Christ arrived at the cave that served as his tomb 
and “raised his voice in a great cry, ‘Lazarus, come forth.’” 
Using light, gesture, and compositional diagonals, Jouvenet 
dramatically portrays the moment when Lazarus, illumi¬ 
nated by a torch in the lower left corner, responds to Christ’s 
command. Standing at the entrance to the cave in the center 
of the composition, gesturing with his right hand toward 
Lazarus through Martha, Christ forms the apex of a triangle 
anchored by Lazarus and the figure of the paralytic man in 
the lower right corner. The exaggerated, theatrical gestures 
and expressions of the crowd animate the scene and bear 
witness to the miraculous event. 

Jouvenet’s exploration of human feelings reflects his 
training with the painter and designer Charles Le Brun 
(1619-1690), who had taken an interest in the young artist 
and employed him at Versailles. Like Le Brun, Jouvenet 
made drawings of figures expressing different emotions for 
use in multiple compositions. The drawing depicting a man 
with upraised arms (Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, inv. no. 
NMH 2761/1863), for example, was a study for the figure 
that appears at left of center in the background of this 
sketch and also one in The Miraculous Draught of Fishes 
(Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 5487). 

Jouvenet exhibited three very large paintings at the 
1704 Salon: in addition to The Raising of Lazarus, the works 
were Christ in the House of Simon and Christ Driving theTraders 
from the Temple (both, Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyon, inv. nos. 
A205, A135). These paintings, plus a fourth, The Miraculous 
Draught of Fishes, had been commissioned in 1697 by the 
Benedictine priory of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, Paris, as 
part of the building renovations and extensive new 
decorations for the monastic church. 1 In 1703 the priory also 
commissioned Louis de Silvestre (1675-1760) and Louis 
Galloche (1670-1761) to paint eleven large canvases illustrat¬ 
ing the life of Saint Benedict for the church. 


Financial difficulties prevented the monks from 
installing Jouvenet’s works in the nave of the church, and in 
July 1705 Jouvenet’s four paintings of the miracles of Christ 
were presented to Louis XIV for the Trianon, the king’s 
personal retreat at Versailles. In 1706 the paintings were 
finally installed in the church of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, 
where they remained until 1792, when they were seized by 
the Revolutionary government. The paintings were placed 
in the Musee du Mois de Decembre 1792 but were returned 
to the church the following year. Two of the paintings were 
presented to the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyon, in 1811. The 
Raising ofLazarus and The Miraculous Draught ofFishes, 
however, went to the Musee Special de l’Ecole Frangaise a 
Notre-Dame de Versailles; in 1816 they were returned to 
Paris and placed in the Louvre. 

Jouvenet’s paintings for Saint-Martin-des-Champs 
met with obvious success. 2 In 1712 he presented four 
cartoons based on the compositions to the Gobelins 
Manufacture, the royal furniture workshops, for the 
production of tapestries. The enormous scale of the original 
paintings, in fact, is similar to that of tapestries. Founded in 
1667 by Le Brun, the Gobelins had begun making tapestry 
copies after famous Renaissance paintings at the end of the 
seventeenth century and continued to do so for popular 
images. Jouvenet’s cartoon for TheRaisingof Lazarus (Palais 
des Beaux-Arts, Lille, inv. no. P481) reproduces in general 
the composition of his painting in the Louvre but differs 
most significantly in the addition of the walls of a city, 
which replace the sky in the Salon version. Jouvenet also 
modified the positions of several heads, altered the 
draperies, and added several figures in the upper right, 
creating a more densely populated composition. 

Rather than a preparatory sketch or copy of the Salon 
painting that once hung in the church of Saint-Martin-des- 
Champs and is now at the Louvre, LACMA’s large, detailed 
oil sketch appears to be an intermediary step between the 
original painting and the cartoon in Lille. The free handling 
of the LACM A sketch and the numerous differences 
between it and both the Louvre and Lille compositions 
indicate that the artist used it to rework his ideas. Most 
notably, the sketch includes the city walls but not the 
figures Jouvenet added at the right in the Lille version. 
Doubts expressed by Antoine Schnapper, who never saw the 
painting in person but judged it on the basis of a photo¬ 
graph to be part autograph and part studio, appear to be 
answered by recognition that the figure of Christ, which he 
questioned, was damaged and restored. 3 AW 


87 














28 

Provenance 

References 


Pierre Legros II 

(1666, Paris-1719, Rome) 


Saint Thomas, 1703-4 
Terracotta, 27% x 18 Yz x 10% in. 
(69.5 x47 x27.3 cm) 


Purchased with funds provided by William Randolph 
Hearst, The Ahmanson Foundation, Chandis 
Securities Company, B. Gerald Cantor, Camilla 
Chandler Frost, Anna Bing Arnold, an anonymous 
donor, Duveen Brothers, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. William 
Preston Harrison, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre Sicard, Colonel 
and Mrs. George J. Dennis, and Julia Off by exchange 
84.1 



88 


Eighteenth Century 


T his extraordinary terracotta is a masterpiece of 

modeling by one of the most important sculptors of 
late Baroque Rome, the Frenchman Pierre Legros. It 
is a bozzetto (study) for a major prestigious artistic enterprise 
of the papacy of Clement XI (r. 1700-1721), the sculpted 
decoration of the nave of the basilica of Saint John Lateran. 
It is only in the beginning of the eighteenth century that 
the magnificent tabernacles built by Francesco Borromini 
in Saint John Lateran between 1646 and 1649 were filled 
with a series of the apostles: twelve colossal statues made of 
single blocks of marble and measuring about four meters 
high. 1 Seven sculptors were responsible for the execution of 
these monumental statues between 1703 and 1718: four 
Italian sculptors each made one figure, two French artists, 
Pierre Etienne Monnot (1657-1733) and Legros, were 
assigned two apostles, respectively, 2 while the lion’s share 
fell to Camillo Rusconi (1658-1718), with four statues. 3 

Born in Paris, Legros learned sculpture from his father, 
Pierre Legros I (1629-1714). Awarded a first prize by the 
Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in 1686, he was 
sent two years later to the French Academy in Rome to 
complete his studies. Having accepted an invitation from 
the Roman Jesuits to work for them at the church of the 
Gesu, he was excluded from the French Academy in 1695; 
this marked the start of his brilliant career, spent entirely in 
Rome. His most important works include Saint Ignatius, in 
silver (destroyed), and Religion CastingDown Heresy, in 
marble, for the altar of Sant’Ignazio at the Gesu; the large- 
scale marble relief The Apotheosis ofSaint Luigi Gonzaga and 
the Monument of Pope Gregory XV in the church of Sant’Ignazio 
di Loyola; the Tomb of Cardinal Casanate in Saint John 
Lateran; the reclining figure in colored marbles Blessed 
Stanislas Kotska on His Deathbed in the church of Sant’Andrea 
al Quirinale; and the monumental statue Saint Dominic in 
the nave of Saint Peter’s. Legros played a critical role in the 
Roman Academy of Saint Luke, to which he was elected in 
1700. In 1715 he returned to France, where he was much 
disappointed that his fame could not open the doors of the 
Royal Academy to him. He went back to Rome after a few 
months and continued to secure important commissions, 


although he suffered from the competition of Camillo 
Rusconi, who had become the leading sculptor in Rome. 

The two apostles that Legros carved for the nave of the 
Lateran are Saint Thomas, paid for by the king of Portugal, 
and Saint Bartholomew, commissioned by Cardinal Lorenzo 
Corsini in 1704 and installed in 1712. 4 Indeed, this very 
expensive sculptural ensemble could only be completed 
thanks to the support of important patrons. It is Saint 
Thomas who carried Christianity to India, where, according 
to legend, he erected a cross on a slab with the prophecy that 
white men would come as missionaries when the sea had 
reached it, which was the case when the Portuguese arrived 
there and proceeded to establish colonies. Peter II of 
Portugal (r. 1683-1706) accepted sponsorship of the statue in 
1703 and sent the money in 1704. The marble figure, on 
which Legros started to work the following year, was 
erected in its niche in 1711. 5 

The procedure imposed at the pope’s behest was that 
all the sculptors had to work to drawings elaborated by the 
leading painter at the time, Carlo Maratti (1625-1723). Many 
sculptors raised difficulties over this constraint, in particu¬ 
lar, Pierre Legros, who apparently succeeded in escaping 
from such a condition. 6 However, a comparison of the 
terracotta model with the monumental marble statue 
shows that the sculptor was asked to make a few changes to 
his composition in order to have it more in compliance with 
the series. 7 The putto was eliminated since none of the other 
apostles was to be accompanied by another figure, and the 
book was replaced by a more specific attribute, the square. 
More generally, while the composition of the marble statue 
is far less animated, the terracotta displays an admirable 
dynamism in the gestures of both the putto and the saint 
and in the large and deep folds of the drapery, especially the 
mantle’s tail floating under the right arm. In addition to 
this audacious composition, it is also the delicacy with 
which some details were so finely modeled in the clay, such 
as the chubby flesh of the putto and the expressive face of 
the saint with his bony forehead, open mouth, and long 
beard, that makes this terracotta a striking masterpiece, full 
of Legros’s unique artistic spirit. ALD 


89 











29 

Francois Lemoyne 

(1688-1737, Paris) 

Diana and Callisto, ca. 1725-28 Gift of'The Ahmanson Foundation 

Oil on canvas, 29 Yz x 37 in. (76 x 95 cm) M.2000.72 

Signed and dated lower right 

Provenance 


on the rocks: F. Lemoyne 172(7 or3] 

Exhibitions 



References 



Technical report 





90 


Eighteenth Century 


C allisto’s story of shame and disgrace was told by 

Ovid in his Metamorphoses (2.441-96). The daughter 
of the Arcadian king, Lycaon—Ovid calls her a 
“virgin from Nonacris”—Callisto is a companion of Diana. 
Jupiter, seeing her wandering alone, disguises himself as 
Diana to make his approach inconspicuous. His tender 
embraces, however, become increasingly pressing, and in 
spite of her attempts to resist, he rapes her. Later, Diana, 
returning from the hunt, finds her companion and invites 
her along with the other nymphs to disrobe and refresh 
themselves in a nearby stream. All nymphs comply with the 
exception of Callisto, who remains clothed until, obeying 
Diana’s order, her dress is forcibly removed. Seeing her 
swollen body, Diana banishes her—the scene represented 
by Lemoyne. Eventually, and after the birth of her son Areas, 
the jealous Juno transforms her into a bear condemned to 
roam the woods. When Callisto is almost killed by her son, 
Jupiter takes pity on her and Areas and transforms them 
into constellations, the Great and the Little Bear. 

Francois Lemoyne’s depiction follows Ovid’s poem 
scrupulously, while relying as well on easily accessible 
visual sources. As noted by Colin Bailey, citing the comte de 
Caylus’s testimony, Lemoyne’s teacher, Louis Galloche, took 
his pupils to the Palais-Royal, where, among the master¬ 
pieces of the Orleans collection, they could study Annibale 
Carracci’s painting of the same subject (ca. 1598; collection 
of the Duke of Sutherland, Mertoun House, St. Boswell’s). 


However, Lemoyne’s originality relies on his use of a 
feathery brush to paint both figures and landscape with 
unusual delicacy. Furthermore, Lemoyne’s goddess and 
nymphs are not stock figures but are instead imbued with 
individual expressions and gestures, which confer an 
almost theatrical quality on his representation. It is known 
that Lemoyne drew most of his figures from models, and 
this must have been the case for this picture as well. It may 
then be surprising that only one drawing can be directly 
associated with the painting, a study for the nude figure of 
Diana. 1 A drawing for the whole composition is mentioned 
by Jean-Luc Bordeaux but has not been located since 1811. 2 

The original destination of the picture is unknown. 
However, it soon became available on the market, and just 
over ten years after the artist’s death, its ownership by a 
London collector was mentioned by Caylus. The painting 
did not leave England until its acquisition by the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art. In England, it was still 
popular enough to be engraved in 1767 by William Walker 
while in the collection of a Nathaniel Webb. 

Lemoyne often executed multiple versions of his 
works. It is therefore not surprising to find mention of 
several other paintings of the same subject by or attributed 
to Lemoyne in various eighteenth-century sales. 3 The most 
likely of these to be autograph was a painting belonging to 
the prince de Conti, which was copied by Gabriel de 
Saint-Aubin in his own copy of the livret of the Salons. 4 jpm 


91 














Guillaume Lethiere 

(1762, Sainte-Anne, 
Guadeloupe-1832, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



The Death of Virginia, ca. i8oo(?) 
Oil on canvas, 19 Vi x 30 in. 

(49.5 x 76.2 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.35 



92 


Eighteenth Century 


T he story of Virginia, originally related by the Roman 
historian Livy, 1 was retold in the eighteenth century 
by Rene Aubert de Vertot d’Aubeuf in Histoire des 
revolutions arrivees dans le gouvernement de la Republique romaine 
(1719) and by Charles Rollin in Histoire romaine (1738-48). 
Published in sixteen volumes, Rollin’s enormously popular 
history was a favorite source for artists in late eighteenth- 
century France who looked to Greece and the early Roman 
Republic for examples of political heroism and personal 
virtue. 2 The story of Virginia embodied both personal and 
political morals. Rather than see his daughter, the young 
and virtuous Roman maiden Virginia, dishonored and 
enslaved by the decemvir Appius Claudius, her father seized 
a butcher’s knife and killed her. As a consequence of this 
tragic act, the people of Rome rebelled against Appius 
Claudius and overthrew the Decemvirate (the ten-member 
ruling commission) in 449 B.C. 

Guillaume Lethiere, who was awarded second place in 
the Prix de Rome in 1784 and two years later admitted as an 
etudepensionnaire (resident student) to the French Academy 
in Rome, was profoundly affected by the mounting political 
crisis in France. He conceived of a project to illustrate the 
four greatest revolutions of the Roman Empire in monu¬ 
mental compositions: Junius Brutus CondemningHis Son to 
Death, The Death of Virginia, The Death of Caesar, and The Defeat 
ofMaxentius. Only two of these enormous compositions 
were ever realized: Brutus CondemningHis Sons to Death in 1811 
and The Death of Virginia (Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. nos. 
6228,6229) in 1828. 3 

In addition to its timely example of moral virtue, 
Virginia’s violent death offered Lethiere an opportunity to 
convey the tragic event through dramatic gestures, expres¬ 
sions, and physical actions. 4 His penchant for violent 
themes was noted by a contemporary critic: “Always blood, 
scaffolds / Lethiere, hide your sketches!” (Toujours du sang, 
des echafauds / Lethiere, cachez done vos esquisses). 5 

A mix of Neoclassicism and Romanticism, LACMA’s 
tightly drawn sketch depicts a Classical subject in a Classical 
setting, but the moment in the story that is depicted is one 
of high drama and violence. Virginia’s enraged father, 
having killed his daughter to preserve her honor, lunges 
toward Appius Claudius, who is enthroned above the crowd 
in front of a row of columns. The ruler leans forward, 
pointing dramatically, his gesture emphasized by his 
brilliant red cape. Set back from the foreground, as if on a 
stage defined by the orthogonals of the pavement, the tragic 
Virginia lies dying. The hysterical response of the crowd 
further disrupts any sense of calm inherent in the setting. 

LACMA’s sketch is one of three—the others are at the 
Musee des Beaux-Arts d’Orleans and the Palais des Beaux- 
Arts de Lille (inv. no. P.447)—related to The Death of Virginia, 
the large painting (about 15 by 25 feet) that Lethiere dated 


1828 and exhibited at the 1831 Salon, now at the Musee du 
Louvre, Paris. 6 In addition to these works, there are a 
number of related drawings, including at least five in which 
the artist experimented with the full composition. 

The relationship of these works to the finished 
painting has never been fully resolved. The compositional 
drawings appear to represent at least two conceptions. The 
final composition of 1828 is closely related to the drawing 
Lethiere exhibited at the 1795 Salon (Musee Tavet-Delacour, 
Pontoise, inv. no. D.75.1.10) 7 and to the sketch in Orleans. All 
three compositions represent Appius Claudius standing on 
a platform just left of center, his left hand raised as if he is 
speaking; to his right, Virginia’s father, a noble centurion, 
lunges forward, his right hand raised in anger, clutching a 
butcher’s knife. 8 Behind him at the right, the mortally 
wounded Virginia collapses in the arms of a witness. A 
compositional drawing at the Louvre (graphite, pen, black 
and red ink with gray wash; inv. no. RF 52609) shares the 
same orientation toward the left and the composition of the 
right side of the 1828 painting, but represents Appius 
Claudius standing on a platform farther left of center. 9 

Although oriented toward the right, LACMA’s sketch 
relates closely to a second group of works, including the 
sketch in Lille and two drawings at the Louvre (inv. nos. RF 
52607 and RF 52608), which, like the painting of 1828, are 
directed toward the left. The major difference between the 
second group and the first group is that Appius Claudius is 
seated in a chair on the raised platform rather than 
standing. The seated figure and other details, including the 
dying Virginia, her lunging father, and the distinctive 
statue in the middle ground, suggest direct inspiration 
from the enormously popular painting exhibited at the 
Salon of 1759 by Gabriel-Francois Doyen (1726-1806) 
(Pinacoteca Nazionale di Parma, inv. no. 1), with whom 
Lethiere studied in 1777. 10 

The close relationship of this group of compositions 
to Doyen’s suggests that they, including LACMA’s sketch, 
preceded Lethiere’s 1795 drawing. 11 One could hypothesize 
that Lethiere had made sketches of Doyen’s composition 
before he went to Rome in 1786. There he saw Doyen’s 
source, Domenichino’s famous Condemnation of Saint Cecilia 
(1612-15), at San Luigi dei Francesi, the French national 
church in Rome. 12 The orientation of LACMA’s sketch 
toward the right, while retaining many of the details of the 
compositions inspired by Doyen, suggests that Lethiere was 
experimenting with new ideas after having traveled to 
Rome. The fact that LACMA’s sketch is well developed in 
terms of composition, light, and color may suggest that it 
represents a modello later rejected in favor of the drawing 
exhibited at the 1795 Salon, which eventually led to the 
painting of 1828. AW 


93 







































31 

Carle van Loo 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

Theseus Taming the Bull of Marathon, 

ca. 1730 

Oil on canvas, 26 x 58 in. (66 x 147.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.15 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 






94 


Eighteenth Century 


I n his Life of Theseus, Plutarch compares the hero to his 
relative Hercules. Both are avengers: “He set forth with 
a design to do injury to nobody, but to repel and to 
revenge himself of all those that should offer any.” Having 
set Theseus’s character, Plutarch lists his deeds: “Longing to 
be in action, and desirous to make himself popular, [Theseus] 
left Athens to fight with the bull of Marathon, which did no 
small mischief to the inhabitants of Tetrapolis.” Carle van 
Loo represented the following episode: “Having overcome 
[the bull] he brought it alive in triumph to the city, and 
afterward sacrificed it to the Delphinian Apollo.” 1 

The subject was rarely, if at all, treated by artists other 
than Loo, who painted several versions of it within a period 
of about twelve years. The closest composition to the Los 
Angeles sketch is that of a large painting in the Musee des 
Beaux-Arts et d’Archeologie, Besancon (ca. 1732-34; inv. no. 
853.11.1). That painting figured in the Bandeville sale in 1787 
in Paris and was described in its catalogue as having been 
painted in Turin for Lorenzo (or Laurent) Somis, the artist’s 
brother-in-law, an indication that would date it between 
1731 and 1734, assuming that this sketch is related to the 
Besangon painting. 


The same sales catalogue mentions the commission 
the artist received in 1744 for a large painting of the same 
subject, which was exhibited at the Salon that year. In order 
to paint this huge painting (about 10 by 23 feet; Musee des 
Beaux-Arts Jules Cheret, Nice, inv. no. 6277), the artist 
might have had his earlier composition sent from Turin to 
serve as a model, although that can perhaps be disputed, 
given the size of the picture and the impracticability of its 
transport. The Nice painting itself served as a cartoon for a 
Gobelins tapestry first woven between 1773 and 1779 (Royal 
Palace, Stockholm). Loo’s commission was for a series of 
seven compositions illustrating the life of Theseus, but only 
this subject was designed and woven. 

It is easy to recognize a reduction of the large Nice 
painting in a small painting at the Pushkin Museum of Fine 
Arts, Moscow. Where our sketch (and another one in a 
private Belgian collection) 2 belongs in the creative process 
of the artist is, however, harder to establish. Its highly 
finished surface excludes considering it a preliminary 
sketch for either the Besancon or the Nice picture. All these 
compositions are nonetheless related to one another and 
share not only the same elongated format but also identical 
figures or grouping of figures, occasionally reversed. JPM 


95 




















32 

Carle van Loo 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

The Three Graces, ca. 1763 

Oil on canvas, 23 x 18 34 in. (58.4 x 46 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.14 

Provenance 




Exhibitions 




References 






96 


Eighteenth Century 


T he personification of beauty, charm, and joy, the 
Three Graces were considered by Voltaire, the 
eighteenth-centuty writer-philosopher (1694-1778), 
to be one of the most beautiful allegories of Greek mythol¬ 
ogy. 1 The Graces were the daughters of the god Zeus and the 
nymph Eurynome and served as attendants to Venus and 
other goddesses. Like the Muses, they resided on Mount 
Olympus and were credited with motivating artists and 
poets to create beautiful works of art. 

The representation of the Three Graces during the 
Renaissance and later derived from an ancient Roman relief 
discovered in the mid-fifteenth century on the site of the 
Palazzo Colonna, Rome, which was presented by Cardinal 
Prospero Colonna to Cardinal Francesco Piccolomini 
(Libreria Piccolomini, Siena Cathedral). Originally thought 
to have been unique, the subject is also known by other 
versions, including one now in the Musee du Louvre, Paris. 2 
In his painting of the Three Graces (Musee Conde, Chantilly, 
inv. no. PE38), Raphael followed the relief sculpture care¬ 
fully, representing the divinities as lithe young maidens— 
nude or scantily clad in diaphanous drapery—dancing in a 
circle, with the central figure facing away from the viewer. 

Carle van Loo’s sketch breaks with this tradition and 
shows the central figure facing forward, flanked on either 
side by the other two Graces, who are turned to face her. A 
drapery suspended from the branches of a tree forms a 
canopy over the three women. Loo’s inspiration for his 
unusual presentation probably came from the seventeenth- 
century Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), 
who represented the Graces in two paintings that Loo could 
have known. 3 Loo appears to have derived the frontal pose 
of the central goddess and the pose of the goddess on the 
right from The Education of Marie de Medicis (Musee du Louvre, 
Paris, inv. no. 1771), one of the enormous canvases Rubens 
painted for the famous Marie de Medicis cycle, then at the 
Luxembourg Palace, Paris. The figure of the Grace at the left 
and the motif of the suspended drapery derive from 
Rubens’s painting The Three Graces (Museo del Prado, Madrid, 
inv. no. P001670), which Loo probably knew from a print. 

Loo painted The Three Graces as major canvases at least 
twice. The subject was originally suggested to him in 1761 
by the diplomat Pierre-Michel Hennin (1728-1807), who 
commissioned a painting in the name of the countess 
Mniszech, Marie-Amelie (1737-1772), daughter of the count 


of Brtihl, minister of Auguste III, king of Poland. 4 That 
painting, exhibited by Loo at the Salon of 1763, is known 
only by Denis Diderot’s description: “The one to the right of 
the viewer is seen from the back, the one in the middle faces 
outward, the third is seen in profile. A putto on the tip of 
his toes, set between the two last mentioned and turning 
his back to the viewer, winds a garland over the buttocks of 
the one seen from the back and hides the natural parts of 
the one seen frontally.” 

Diderot responded negatively to the ungraceful 
proportions of the figures: “[The Graces] of Van Loo are 
heavy, oh so heavy.” 5 His opinion was echoed sharply by the 
king’s mistress, Madame de Pompadour: “You call those 
Graces!” (“((a des Graces!”). Humiliated, Loo tried unsuc¬ 
cessfully to remove the painting from display. After the 
close of the Salon, he destroyed the canvas and began work 
on another. In his second version (Chateau de Chenonceau), 
the artist gave the three figures more slender, graceful 
proportions, eliminated the putto, and made other alter¬ 
ations. Exhibited at the Salon following his death in 1765, 
however, this painting also met with criticism from Diderot, 
who called it “insipid.” 6 

It is unclear when Loo painted LACMA’s sketch. 
Georges de Lastic has suggested cautiously that this 
painting preceded all other versions. 7 The heavier propor¬ 
tions of the LACMA sketch, which may reflect the 
derivation of the image from Rubens’s paintings, support 
the earlier dating. A black chalk drawing of The Three Graces, 
dated 1763 (Musee Arbaud, Aix-en-Provence), already shows 
Loo’s movement toward the final composition. 

LACMA’s sketch became the best known of the 
versions painted by Loo. An engraving by Jacques Jean 
Pasquier (1718-1785), dated 1769, reproduces this sketch in 
reverse. Dedicated to Prince Charles de Salm-Salm, 8 the 
print has an inscription indicating it was made after the 
painting that was then owned by the chevalier Damery, an 
eighteenth-century collector. It was this engraving that 
Charles-Nicolas Dodin (1734-1803) used as the pattern for 
the decoration of a Sevres vase (The Huntington Library, Art 
Collections, and Botanical Gardens, San Marino, inv. no. 
27.35) and for a cup (private collection, Paris), which exactly 
reproduces the composition of LACMA’s sketch. 5 AW 


97 












33 

Carle van Loo 

The Victory of Alexander 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

overKingPorus, ca. 1738 

Oil on canvas, 25 7 /s x 36 in. 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.13 


Provenance 


(65.7x91.4 cm) 


Exhibitions 


Signed lower left: Carlo Vanloo 


References 






98 


Eighteenth Century 


T he story of Alexander the Great’s victory at the 

battle of Issus over King Porus, the Indian king who 
resisted Alexander’s invasion of the Punjab, 
illustrates the magnanimity of the Macedonian monarch. 
Impressed by his adversary’s courage, Alexander chose him 
as ruler of the region and made him deputy of the Greek 
government. The heroic tale was particularly appropriate in 
the context of the Spanish monarchy, whose empire, like 
Alexander’s, extended over several continents. 

The original commission, organized by the architect 
Filippo Juvarra, was to be part of a group of paintings 
intended to decorate the Salon de las Empresas del Rey at La 
Granja de San Ildefonso, near Madrid. The other artists 
selected for the decoration were all Italians: Sebastiano 
Conca, Francesco Solimena, Francesco Trevisani, Filippo 
Parodi, Donato Creti, Agostino Masucci, and Giovanni 
Battista Pittoni. The only French artist included in the 
group was Frangois Lemoyne (1688-1737), who left an 
unfinished sketch for it at the time of his suicide in 1737. 

The Spanish ambassador to France, the marques de la Mina, 
who was consulted about the best French artist for the work, 
chose Carle van Loo, who had received a previous, but never 
executed, commission for La Granja. A drawing, sent to the 
court, was approved, and the painting, unfinished, was 
exhibited at the 1738 Salon. Much admired, the picture was 
nevertheless destroyed by the artist and replaced by another 


composition, shown at the 1739 Salon, which was installed 
at La Granja (but not in the originally intended location) 
before being transferred to the Escorial, where it is now 
located. The Escorial painting displays considerable 
discrepancies with the Los Angeles sketch, which is perhaps 
closer to the destroyed first version. In his writings about 
the 1738 Salon, a feature admired by Jean-Frangois Neufville 
de Brunaubois-Montador, an enlightened author and critic, 
was “an elephant in the background ... on whose leg rests a 
dead soldier,” adding that the figure’s foreshortening was 
particularly well executed. 1 Although no elephant is 
featured in this sketch, the figure at the lower right resting 
on a dead horse achieves the same, if somewhat less exotic, 
effect and could indicate that the sketch precedes the 1738 
Salon painting. 

If the choice of Loo for the commission seems justified 
in the wake of Lemoyne’s death, another strong contender 
could have been Charles-Joseph Natoire, whose heroic cycle 
devoted to the life of Clovis, painted between 1735 and 1738 
for Philibert Orry’s Chateau de La Chapelle-Godefroy, 
predates Loo’s Spanish commission. One of Natoire’s 
paintings from the cycle. The Battle of Tolbiac (1735; Musee 
des Beaux-Arts, Tours, inv. no. 879.1.6), seems to have 
influenced not only Van Loo’s composition of the subject 
but also his choice of light and clear colors, jpm 


99 




























The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.25 


34 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Francois-Guillaume 

Menageot 

(1744, London-1816, Paris) 


The Death ofLeonardo da Vinci 
in the Arms of Francois I, ca. 1781 

Oil on canvas, 21% x 21^6 in. 
( 54-3 x 54-9 cm) 



IOO 


Eighteenth Century 


H aving struggled to raise his weakened body to 
greet his devoted patron, Francois I, the ailing 
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) collapsed and died 
in the arms of the French king. In LACMA’s oil sketch The 
Death ofLeonardo da Vinci in the Arms of Francois I, Frangois- 
Guillaume Menageot deftly portrays the anguish on the 
artist’s face and the tender, sympathetic gesture of the 
French king, who cradles him in his arms. Menageot uses 
the artist’s bright white dressing gown and gold and white 
bedclothes like a spotlight to draw the viewer’s attention to 
the dying artist in the dark bedchamber. The harmony of 
the primary colors emerging from the gloom is a dramatic 
departure from the soft pastel tones of contemporary Rococo 
works, as are the high pathos and seriousness of the subject. 

Menageot’s freely brushed sketch is a preliminary 
study for The Death ofLeonardo da Vinci in the Arms of Francois I 
(1781; Musee de l’Hotel de Ville, Amboise, inv. no. 6602). 
Commissioned by the Batiments du Roi in 1780, the 
finished painting was to serve as the model for a Gobelins 
tapestry, one of a series illustrating the history of France. 1 
The completed painting, which was exhibited at the Salon 
of 1781, brought Menageot his greatest critical acclaim. At 
least five prints were made after the composition, including 
one by L. P. F. Gareau, executed in 1781 and bearing the arms 
of the countess de Provence, sister-in-law of Louis XVI. 2 

The description of the painting in the livret of the 
Salon reflects the reverence with which Leonardo was held 
in France: 

Leonardo da Vinci, Florentine painter, born in 1455, 
whom one could regard as the most universal man of 
his century, as much for his profound knowledge as 
for his agreeable talent, was called to the court of 
Francois I; this prince lodged him in his chateau at 
Fontainebleau; [the king] loved him so much that 
when Leonardo fell ill, he would often go to visit him; 
one day as the king entered his room, Leonardo da 
Vinci tried to raise himself to show his respect, but 
fainted into the arms of the king and died. 

First recorded by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) in the 1550 
edition of Lives of the Artists (ch. 4, pp. 135-36), the story of 
Leonardo’s death in the arms of Frangois I (1494-1547) is 
apocryphal. Although Leonardo had died while in the 
king’s employment, Frangois I and his court were actually at 
Saint-Germain-en-Laye at the time of Leonardo’s death, not 
at the artist’s bedside at Cloux. In selecting the subject, 
Menageot sought to emphasize the generosity of the king 
toward the great Italian artist and thus flatter the current 
monarch. In his review of the Salon of 1781, Denis Diderot 
commented on the suitability of the painting’s theme in 
terms of its emphasis on the king, regarded as the father of 
the arts and sciences in France, rather than on the dying 


painter. 3 A poem by the painter Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson 
(1767-1824) reflects the Romantic cult attached to these two 
great men of history: 

How it lets me admire in a fortunate image 

The illustrious Leonardo in all his glory and age: 

Content to die in the arms of Francis, 

The great man breathes his last sigh for the great king. 4 

Girodet’s sentimental response to the Salon painting 
is particularly significant, because LACMA’s sketch was in 
Girodet’s collection at the time of his death in 1824, possibly 
acquired directly from Menageot. 

The depiction of a virtuous hero on his deathbed 
surrounded by mourners was popular in both France and 
England at the end of the eighteenth century; the subject 
was, however, usually drawn from classical antiquity rather 
than national histoiy. 5 The compositional arrangement of 
these paintings, including Menageot’s, derived from 
Nicolas Poussin’s Death of Germanicus, of about 1627 
(Minneapolis Institute of Art, inv. no. 58.28). This popular 
painting depicting the death of the heroic Roman general 
was then in Italy but widely known and admired in France 
and England through prints and numerous copies. 

LACMA’s sketch is particularly valuable as a record of 
the original appearance of Menageot’s painting exhibited at 
the 1781 Salon, which until recently was known only 
through engravings. The Salon painting, which had 
immediately entered the collection of Louis XVI, was 
transferred in 1810 to the Musee Napoleon and then to 
Fontainebleau. When it was moved to the staircase at 
Versailles in 1842, the canvas was cut at the top and 
extended on the left side, transforming its original square 
format into a horizontal one. The LACMA sketch retains the 
square shape and includes the dark green box-canopy over 
the bed that was eliminated from the Salon painting when 
it was cut at the top. The compositions of the two works are 
otherwise very similar. 

Critics of Menageot’s Salon painting admired its 
composition and drawing and were impressed by the 
accuracy of the expressions and historical details in 
costume and setting, which also appear in the sketch but 
with less detail. Through the open doorway in the back¬ 
ground at the left, one can see a version of Leonardo’s The 
Virgin and Child with Saint Anne on an easel. In a niche above, 
part of the ancient sculpture known as the Borghese Gladiator 
is visible. In the eighteenth century, both were thought to 
have been in the collection of Frangois I. 6 Menageot’s 
interest in historical accuracy anticipates the troubadour 
style of the nineteenth century, when the death ofLeonardo 
in the arms of the king was a particularly popular theme 
among royalists. 7 AW 


101 













35 

Charles-Joseph Natoire 

Psyche in the Underworld 

(1700, Nimes-1777, Castel Gandolfo) 

(Psyche Obtaining the Elixir of Beauty 

Provenance 

from Proserpine), ca. 1735-39 

Oil on canvas, 101% x 65% in. 

References 


(258.8 x167 cm) 

Technical report 




Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2001.80 


102 


Eighteenth Century 


T he eight overdoors representing episodes in the 
story of Psyche, commissioned by the prince de 
Rohan and executed between 1737 and 1739 for the 
decoration of his second, and much younger, wife’s 
apartment, mark the apogee of Charles-Joseph Natoire’s 
career. The story of Psyche, first told by Apuleius and the 
subject of a lengthy poetic story, Les amours de Psyche et de 
Cupidon, by Jean de La Fontaine (1699), was particularly well 
suited to the talents of the artist whose graceful composi¬ 
tions and delicate sense of colors had contributed to 
establish him, along with Francois Boucher, as one of the 
most sought-after painters in Paris. 

The theme of Psyche appealed to Natoire, who revisited 
it on several occasions throughout his career. In this rarely 
represented episode of Psyche’s travails—not recounted by 
Apuleius but instead largely developed in La Fontaine’s text, 
a source more readily accessible to Natoire—Psyche appears 
in a monster-populated underworld in front of Pluto and 
Proserpina, requesting from the latter the Elixir of Beauty, 
which Venus had ordered her to obtain. Lacking visual 
precedents for this scene, Natoire based his image on 
religious models, in which the divine and temporal realms 
are defined by a spatial structure that contributes to the 
narrative clarity of the scene: as the Virgin Mary and Christ, 
for instance, are usually represented on a higher level than 
the more worldly figures of saints allowed in their presence, 
here Proserpina and Pluto, gods of the underworld, 
dominate the begging and intruding figure of Psyche. The 
addition of grotesque figures, as well as that of the beautiful 
head seen from behind in the foreground, suggests a 
theatrical, or operatic, context. 


In spite of its thematic relationship to the Psyche cycle 
for the Hotel de Soubise, in Paris, involving overdoor 
paintings, the picture cannot be a discarded project as there 
was no intention to insert a vertical painting in the room 
and must therefore be the result of another commission. In 
his discussion of the large and finished preparatory drawing 
for the LACMA painting at the Musee du Louvre, Paris (inv. 
no. 31416), Jean-Frangois Mejanes prudently suggested 
connecting the painting to an original commission Natoire 
would have received from La Live de Bellegarde for his 
Chateau de la Chevrette, near Paris. 1 According to contem¬ 
porary sources, the paintings were meant to appear and 
disappear—somewhat like theatrical backdrops—thanks to 
a complicated mechanism especially constructed to that 
effect. 2 The other paintings by Natoire associated with that 
commission included the Toilet of Psyche, at the New Orleans 
Museum of Art (inv. no. 40.2), and Venus ShowingPsyche to 
Cupid, in a New York private collection. A fourth painting, 
Venus Forbidding Cupid to See Psyche, has not been identified. 
This provenance has been challenged. In her 2012 mono¬ 
graph on the artist, Susanna Caviglia-Brunel rejects it for 
lack of reliable sources. 

A document published by Patrick Violette establishes 
that Natoire was painting for La Live de Bellegarde at La 
Chevrette in 1737, which is—astonishingly—concurrent 
with his activity at the Hotel de Soubise. 3 Stylistically, 
however, the Los Angeles painting might slightly precede 
the Soubise cycle. The crispness of the drawing, as well as 
the green and brown harmonies of the painting itself, may 
seem closer to characteristics of documented paintings of 
the early or mid-i73os, prior in any case to Natoire’s 
adoption of a language dominated by soft, fuller figures and 
a palette where pastel-like pinks and blues prevail, jpm 


103 














36 

Augustin Pajou 

Portrait of a Man, 1791 

(1730-1809, Paris) 

Plaster on painted wood socle and plinth; 
overall (with socle and plinth): 

Provenance 


29% x 19 x 11 in. (75.6 x 49.5 x 27.9 cm) 

References 


Inscribed on right shoulder truncation: Par Pajou 
Citoyen deLa Ville de Paris. 1791 

Painted on front of plinth: si trompant nos 

DOULEURS d’uN PERE QUI n’eST PLUS / CETTE 

ARGILE A NOS YEUX SAIT RETRACER L’lMAGE, / DANS 
NOS CCEURS AFFLIGES, OU VIVRONT SES VERTUS, / 

NOTRE AMOUR LUI CONSACRE UN PLUS DURABLE 

hommAge. (While this clay can deceive our sorrow 
for a father who has died / by re-creating his image 
before our eyes, / It is in our suffering hearts, where 
his virtues survive, / that our love accords to him a 
more lasting homage.) 



Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.75.101 


104 


Eighteenth Century 


I t is hard to believe that this lively portrait of a middle- 
aged man, captured while he has just turned his head to 
stare at an invisible partner positioned at his right, his 
semiparted lips about to speak, is a posthumous one, as 
indicated in the inscription on the plinth. This bust, of 
which there is a similar version in terracotta, which varies in 
the treatment of the hair (Musee Fabre, Montpellier, inv. no. 
68-2-100), 1 counts among the best-composed portraits by 
Augustin Pajou. Characteristic of his style are the dynamism 
created by the movement of the head, the naturalism in the 
depiction of the face and neck and in the disposition of the 
clothes, and the animation of the various surfaces, espe¬ 
cially through the contrast between the deep folds of the 
jacket and the small wrinkles and delicate lace of the shirt. 

One of the most eminent sculptors of the French 
Enlightenment, Pajou had a very successful career. Entering 
the studio of the sculptor Jean-Baptiste II Lemoyne at the 
age of fourteen, he won first prize of the Royal Academy of 
Painting and Sculpture in Paris four years later, in 1748. 
After his return from Italy, where he was a scholar in the 
French Academy in Rome between 1752 and 1756, he was 
admitted to the Royal Academy in 1758 and became a full 
member the following year. Then the artist accumulated 
important responsibilities: professor of the Royal Academy 
in 1760, draftsman of the Academy of Inscriptions and 
Belles Lettres in 1773, keeper of the royal antique sculptures 
in 1777, rector of the Royal Academy in 1792, and under the 
Revolution, member of the Commission of Monuments. He 
was responsible for many important royal commissions, 
such as the interior decoration of the Royal Opera in 
Versailles (i768-7o), 2 reliefs and statues for the Palais-Royal 
in Paris (1769), and his famous marble Monument to Buffon 
(1776; Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, inv. no. 


649) and statue of Psyche Abandoned (1790; Musee du Louvre, 
Paris, inv. no. MR SUP. 62). Working successfully in every 
genre, he realized large religious statues, funerary monu¬ 
ments, commemorative statues of great men, and 
small-scale works for private collectors. He also excelled in 
the realm of portraiture. He immortalized the images of the 
elite, executing five different busts of the comtesse Du Barry, 
for example; he was chosen by Louis XVI for his official 
portrait bust. Pajou also portrayed many colleagues and 
friends, such as his master, Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne (1759), 
and the painters Elisabeth Vigee-Le Brun (1783) and Hubert 
Robert (1787), 3 whose bust is quite close in composition and 
spirit to those of the LACMA and Montpellier works. 

By tradition this plaster bust was identified as a 
portrait of Jean Sylvain Badly (1736-1793), an astronomer 
and Parisian deputy to the States General, renowned above 
all for becoming the first mayor of Paris on 15 July 1789. 
Henri Stein’s 1912 monograph on the sculptor repeated this 
assertion about the work, which was then in the collection 
of Pierre Decourcelle. However, on the occasion of the Pajou 
exhibition in 1997-98, Guilhem Scherf convincingly 
demonstrated that this identification—based on no 
documentary proof—was wrong. Indeed, not only did 
Badly have different facial features, with a narrow, elon¬ 
gated face, as shown by several documented portraits, but 
he also had no children and cannot consequently corre¬ 
spond to the belated father praised in the plinth 
inscriptions of both the plaster and terracotta versions. 
Unfortunately, it has so far been impossible to identify the 
sitter. He was most likely a recently deceased friend of Pajou, 
who magnificently succeeded in offering the mourning 
children a very sensitive depiction of “a father who is no 
more,” whom their “sorrowful hearts” deeply loved. ALD 


105 










37 

Jean-Baptiste Regnault 

(1754-1829, Paris) 

Aeneas Offering Presents 
to KingLatinus andAskingHim 
for the Hand of His Daughter, 1778 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.31 

Provenance 


Oil on canvas, 9 14 x 19 14 in. 


Exhibitions 


(23.5x48.9 cm) 


References 


Signed and dated lower right: Renaudf1778 




io6 


Eighteenth Century 


T he subject of this painting, an episode rarely repre¬ 
sented, is recounted in two antique sources, Cato’s 
Origines (1,2) and Virgil’s Aeneid (7.58-106), a text 
more readily accessible to Jean-Baptiste Regnault. A paint¬ 
ing of the subject is mentioned in the livret of the 1783 Salon 
as an esquisse, or oil sketch, one of the many works exhibited 
there by the young artist, who went by his family name 
Renaud until 1785, when he adopted that of Regnault. 

One may wonder why a work that was executed in 
1778 was not shown until 1783. In 1776 Regnault, winner 
of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture’s Grand 
Prix, had gone to Rome. Shortly upon his return in 1782, he 
was admitted (agree) to the Royal Academy. The Salon took 
place between his receiving that distinction and his being 
made full Academician on 25 October 1783. Regnault was 
exhibiting for the first time at the 1783 Paris Salon—domi¬ 
nated that year by a large selection of portraits by Elisabeth 
Vigee-Lebrun—no fewer than thirty of his paintings, 
mostly history paintings, the genre best suited to his talent. 
Most, if not all, of his entries had been painted in Rome 
and already showed an artist well versed in adapting the 


examples of the great Bolognese and Roman tradition to 
a new idiom. The works were well received: one critic wrote, 
for instance, “M. Renaud, nouvel agree, est regarde par 
certains comme deja superieur aux maitres” (Mr. Renaud, 
recently admitted [to the Academy] is already considered 
by some as superior to the masters). 1 

Regnault’s artistic development paralleled that of 
Jacques-Louis David (who exhibited his Andromache Weeping 
over the Body of Hector at the same Salon), an artist who, in 
spite of Regnault’s originality and considerable success, 
overshadowed his career. This sketch—or rather small 
painting—ambitious in both composition and narrative 
intention, was executed the same year David exhibited 
in Rome his Funeral ofPatrocles (dated 1779, but executed 
between 1777 and 1778; National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 
inv. no. 4060). Besides their elongated format, both 
paintings share similarities, notably between the figures of 
Aeneas and Achilles, as well as a dramatic use of powerful 
highlights, which endow individuals or groupings of fig¬ 
ures with particularly dramatic prominence, jpm 


107 

















38 

Jean-Bernard Restout 

The Arrival of Aeneas in Carthage, 

(1732-1796, Paris) 

ca. 1772-74 

Oil on paper laid on canvas. 

Provenance 


12 J4 x 27 in. (31.1 x 68.5 cm) 

Exhibitions 

References 


The Departure of Dido and Aeneas 
for the Hunt, ca. 1772-74 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 

12% x 15% in. (32.1 x 40 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.23 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.22 



108 


Eighteenth Century 


T hese two paintings, now reunited after having 

been in different collections, are part of an impor¬ 
tant commission received in 1772 by Jean-Bernard 
Restout, son of Jean Restout (1692-1763) and nephew 
of Noel Halle (1711-1781), from the marquis de Marigny 
(1727-1781), brother of the marquise de Pompadour and 
director general of the king’s buildings. The commission 
was for five compositions based on the story of Aeneas—a 
common and favorite subject—to be woven at the Gobelins. 
Jean-Baptiste-Marie Pierre (1714-1789) had personally 
recommended Restout to carry out the project based on the 
artist’s ability to succeed “in the heroic style.” 1 By 1774 the 
studies for the tapestries were completed. Each one was 
estimated to cost the large sum of 4,500 livres. 

Four of these five oil sketches have survived. Besides 
the two included in this catalogue, a third one representing 
Dido and Aeneas seeking shelter in a grotto to protect them¬ 
selves from the tempest ordered by Juno is also in LACMA’s 
collection. 2 A fourth one. The Sacrifice of Dido, was identi¬ 
fied by this author in the collections of the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, under the same attribution to 


Joseph-Marie Vien (1716-1809) that had originally been 
affixed to the two Ahmanson paintings. 3 The fifth painting, 
depicting the death of Dido, has not yet been located. 

Neither the tapestries, nor apparently their cartoons, 
were ever executed. At times Restout’s belligerent nature 
brought him into opposition to his patrons within the 
hierarchic structure of the French art establishment. Eager 
to obtain the honors he felt entitled to, Restout failed, 
however, to produce the works expected to deserve them. 
“The rewards,” said Jean-Baptiste Pierre in a 1784 letter to 
the comte d’Angivillier (1730-1809), Marigny’s successor, on 
the subject of a request made by Restout shortly after his 
mother’s death to keep her royal pension, “can only affect 
the artists who are concerned with their art, and to be more 
specific, with their duties.” To make his point clear, Pierre, 
in the same letter, takes the example of the 1772 com¬ 
mission (which he had been instrumental in securing for 
Restout) and deplores its lack of progress. Fourteen years 
later, the first of the five paintings, according to Pierre, was 
still not completed. 4 jpm 


109 



















■■ 


39 

Hubert Robert 

(1733-1808, Paris) 

Stair and Fountain in a Park, ca. i 775 (?) Gift °fThe Ahmanson Foundation 

Oil on canvas, 133 Vs x 110 14 in. AC1995.170.1 

(340 x 280 cm) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



Technical report 





no 


Eighteenth Century 


N ever exhibited prior to its acquisition by LACMA, 
this imposing composition has not yet been traced 
back to before its acquisition by Camille Groult. 
Formed in the later part of the nineteenth century, Camille 
Groult’s collection comprised British paintings, the largest 
number of landscapes by J.M.W. Turner in private hands, 
French pastels, and eighty works by Hubert Robert. 

The painting is obviously a fantasy, or large capriccio, 
featuring a fancy, partly ruined, double staircase leading to 
a platform, from which a gigantic staircase ascends toward 
another terraced garden. Vigorous water jets and fountains 
feed a wide basin at the bottom in which the water comes to 
rest peacefully after cascading over large boulders. It is clear 
that such a contraption defies the laws of physics and could 
only exist in the artist’s mind. In 1762 Robert, then pension- 
naire at the French Academy in Rome, visited Tivoli. The 
gardens of the Villa d’Este there, which had been created in 
1560 by Pirro Ligorio (ca. 1513-1583), had by the time of 
Robert’s visit fallen into a state of disrepair. While some of 
its fountains still functioned, most of the garden had been 
reclaimed by nature. Sculptures were disappearing under 
vegetation and moss-covered fountains. This poetic struggle 
between art and nature may have exerted a particular 
appeal for Robert, who not only executed drawings of 
actual sites in the garden, some perhaps executed in situ, 
but above all retained the atmosphere of the garden as a 
constant source of inspiration for his paintings, as well as 
for his later garden designs. 

Such is the case with the Los Angeles painting. 
Executed in Paris probably some years after his return to 
France in 1765/ this imaginary view is informed by memo¬ 
ries of Italy. Robert, like all pensionnaires in Rome, had been 


instructed to copy antiquities, and he did so with perhaps 
more gusto than some of his peers. Such antiquities as the 
Borghese Vase, a celebrated antique Robert used in several 
compositions, or the Egyptian lions from the Capitoline 
steps, are displayed in new fictitious contexts. 2 The design 
of Hubert’s fountain can also be considered an enlargement 
ad absurdum of the Villa d’Este’s, its dimensions pointing 
to the architect Etienne-Louis Boullee’s visionary projects of 
a decade later. 3 

LACMA’s Robert has traditionally been paired with a 
painting, also formerly in the Groult collection and now in 
a French private collection. The two paintings in fact have 
little in common, as the so-called pendant of the Los 
Angeles painting is more “French” than “Italian.” While it 
features an original portico/fountain, its composition 
difFers, unlike a proper pendant. In the opinion of this 
writer, the two paintings may not be contemporaneous, the 
privately owned one being perhaps slightly earlier than its 
assumed pendant. 

A drawing, also in LACMA’s collection, has been 
rightly associated with the painting, although as remarked 
by Yuriko Jackall, it “appears far more grounded in some 
kind of observed reality.” 4 More closely related yet is a 
drawing in Valence, 5 entitled Staircase in a Park, which, in a 
more rustic manner, features the same double staircase, the 
vaulted opening under the bridge, and the walled terrace 
with one of the Capitoline lions. Because of the similarity 
between the figures in that drawing and those in another 
drawing, also in Valence, dated 1774, 6 the Valence Staircase 
has been assigned a date of 1775 or later. The same date 
could be suggested for the present painting, jpm 


111 

















40 

Jacques Sablet 

(1749, Morges, Switzerland-1803, Paris) 

Helen Saved by Venus 
from the Wrath of Aeneas, 1779 

Oil on paper laid on canvas. 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.27 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


19 Vi x 13 Vi in. (24.1 x 34.3 cm) 




112 


Eighteenth Century 


113 


O nce tentatively attributed to Gabriel-Francois 

Doyen, this sketch representing an episode from 
th tAeneid (2.590-600) is instead an important 
landmark in the career of Jacques Sablet. Its attribution is 
confirmed beyond doubt by the fact that it figures in the 
upper left corner of the 1781 painting showing the artist and 
his parents in Sablet’s studio. 

The location of the finished painting is unknown. The 
sketch, however, illustrates Sablet’s ambition, upon his 
return from Rome, to embark on the lucrative profession of 
history painter. His attempts to gain recognition in this genre 
were nonetheless discouraged by the harsh criticism elicited 
by his mythological paintings when exhibited in Bern in 
1804. 1 Shortly thereafter, Sablet shifted his practice from 
history to genre painting in spite of an earlier success at the 
Parma F ine Arts Academy, where his Death of Pallas (Museo 
Civico, Vicenza) had earned him a first prize in 1778. 2 jpm 














41 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Jacques Sablet Allegory of the City of Bern 

(1749, Morges, Switzerland-1803, Paris) ( The Temple of the Liberal Arts, 

with the City of Bern and the Goddess 

Minerva), 1779 

Oil on canvas, 13 14 x 21 in. 

( 33 - 7 X 53-3 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.28 



114 


Eighteenth Century 


T his painting marks the beginning of the career of 
Jacques Sablet. Swiss, but trained in France under 
Joseph-Marie Vien, Sablet followed his master to 
Rome in 1775. In 1778 the young painter obtained the first 
prize at the Fine Arts Academy in Parma 1 and, encouraged 
by this recognition, approached the city of Bern about 
painting an allegory honoring the city. Having his petition 
rejected, he tried again—this time with success—in 1779. 
The large, final painting, signed and dated 1781, is in the 
Kunstmuseum in Bern (inv. no. 816). A sketch for the 
composition (Musee Cantonal des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne, 
inv. no. 1143), figuring in the catalogue of the exhibition 
devoted to the Sablet brothers, was then considered the 
sketch for the painting. Neither the Lausanne nor the Los 
Angeles sketch is, in fact, an exact study for the Bern 
painting, whose vertical composition reproduces only 
individual figures or groups from both sketches. The Los 
Angeles version is somewhat closer to the finished painting 
in that in both this sketch and the Bern picture, the arm of 
the allegorical sculpture to which Minerva is leading the 


City of Bern is more extended than in the Lausanne sketch. 
Likewise, the figure of Bern itself is also closer to its final 
iteration in the Los Angeles sketch. Furthermore, it is not 
the Lausanne sketch, as stated in the Nantes catalogue, 2 but 
instead the Los Angeles one that figures among the 
paintings displayed in the image of the artist’s studio 
painted the same year—1781—by Sablet himself (Musee 
Cantonal des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne, inv. no. 743). 

That Sablet painted two versions of his proposed 
painting, changing details from one to another while main¬ 
taining its basic composition, is not surprising given the 
difficulties he encountered getting it accepted by the local 
Swiss authorities. For reasons explained above, it is likely 
that the Los Angeles version was a second sketch executed 
closer to the completion of the final work. It is thus hard to 
ascertain if it was the first sketch that was exhibited in the 
house of Jacob Sablet, Jacques’s father, in Lausanne in 1779, 3 
or the Los Angeles version, which in 1781 was still in the 
artist’s possession and displayed among the “visual 
catalogue” of his works on the walls of his studio, jpm 


115 














42 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours 

(1752-1809, Geneva) 


The Reunion of Cupid and Psyche, 1793 
Oil on panel, 13 7 /s x 15 J4 in. 

(35.2 x 40 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.30 



116 


Eighteenth Century 


J ean-Pierre Saint-Ours captures the romantic exuberance 
of two lovers reuniting in The Reunion of Cupid and Psyche. 
Framed by a classical column that borders their nuptial 
bed, Cupid rushes out of the dark, swirling clouds and 
gathers the beautiful mortal Psyche up in his arms. Literally 
swept away by passion, Psyche arches her body gracefully 
over his head and grasps his bow with her right hand. Their 
eyes meet. Her dislodged drapery swirls softly around her 
body, baring her right breast. The carefully delineated 
forms of the youthful nude and his lover reflect the 
Neoclassical ideal of grace and recall the famous sculpture 
CupidAwakeningPsyche, of 1783-93 (Musee du Louvre, Paris, 
inv. no. MR 1777) by Saint-Ours’s friend Antonio Canova 
(1757-1822). 1 

In the classic Greek myth told by Apuleius in the 
Metamorphoses, the beautiful mortal Psyche incurs the 
jealous wrath of Venus, who orders her son Cupid to use his 
golden arrows to make Psyche fall in love with the ugliest 
man on earth. When Cupid accidentally pricks his finger 
with the arrow, however, he falls madly in love with the 
beautiful maiden. Meanwhile, concerned that his daughter 
is unwed, her father, the king, consults the oracle of Apollo, 
who tells him that she will marry a fearful, dragonlike 
creature. Frightened, he transports her to the peak of a 
rocky crag, where she is abandoned until Zephyr, the West 
Wind, conveys her to a meadow, where upon waking she 
discovers a beautiful house with golden columns and 
jeweled floors. Soothed by a disembodied voice in the dark, 
she willingly follows it to a bedroom, where she meets her 
lover, who disappears each morning without revealing 
himself. When Psyche eventually identifies Cupid as her 
lover, he flees and she begins to wander the earth. Venus 
puts her through a series of dangerous and seemingly 
impossible trials. Aided by others and driven by her love for 
Cupid, Psyche perseveres. When Cupid escapes his mother’s 
house, he finds Psyche and lifts her into the air. The god 
Jupiter eventually intervenes and grants Psyche immortality, 
whereupon she and Cupid are blissfully reunited in heaven. 

LACMA’s panel represents Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours’s 
lost composition The Reunion of Cupid and Psyche (location 
unknown), 2 which he was commissioned to paint for the 
Pompeian Room at the Palazzo Altieri, Rome. Located 
across from II Gesu, the mother church of the Jesuit Order, 
construction of the palace was begun in 1650 by Emilio 
Altieri (1590-1676), later Pope Clement X (r. 1670-76), after 
which it served as the home of the Altieri family in Rome. 3 
In 1789 his descendant Prince Emilio Altieri initiated the 
decoration of the Pompeian Room, incorporating decora¬ 
tive motifs inspired by those at the ancient city of Pompeii, 


which had been rediscovered in 1748. The scholar Vito Maria 
Giovinezzi (1727-1805) served as adviser for the painting 
program, which was based on the tale of Psyche. With its 
theme of transcendental love and the triumph of the 
human spirit, this timeless story had been chosen to 
celebrate the marriage in Rome on 15 October 1793 of the 
prince’s son, Prince Paluzzo Altieri di Oriolo (1760-1834), 
later principe di Oriolo, and Maria Anna von der Lausitz 
(1770-1845), daughter of Franz Xavier, prince of Saxony, 
and Carla Maria Rosa von Spinuzzi. 4 

A drawing by Felice Giani (1758-1823) (Cooper-Hewitt 
Museum, Smithsonian Institution, New York, inv. no. 
1901-39-1545), one of the artists commissioned to contribute 
to the decorations of the room, shows the disposition of the 
space and indicates that The Reunion of Cupid and Psyche was 
to be placed over the door. Although the work was previ¬ 
ously attributed to Benigne Gagneraux (1756-1795), a 
French painter living in Rome who was another of the 
artists commissioned to decorate the room, two documents 
came to light which indicate that Saint-Ours accepted the 
commission on 3 August 1789 and that in 1792, he received 
payment of 130 scudi for an overdoor representing the 
Reunion of Cupid and Psyche. 5 

Saint-Ours apparently delivered the finished painting, 
but either it was never installed or it was removed at a later 
date. 6 In his autobiography the artist states ambiguously, “I 
delivered in January 1792 the painting to Prince Alfiery [s/c] 
who was so pleased with it that he had it placed in the 
bedroom until the apartment was ready, and he paid me on 
the spot.” 7 The inscription on a drawing of the same com¬ 
position (Musee d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva, inv. no. 1915-94) 8 
states that the dimensions of the finished painting (location 
unknown) 9 were “4 pieds 6 pouces sur 3 pieds 7 pouces.” 10 

Like the Geneva drawing, LACMA’s panel, which has 
similar dimensions, has been considered a preliminary 
sketch by Saint-Ours for the missing Altieri overdoor. More 
recently, however, Pierre Rosenberg and Benjamin Peronnet 
have identified LACMA’s painting as one of three versions 
of “Psyche” included by Saint-Ours in a manuscript list of 
works he completed after his arrival in Geneva in August 
1792:1792 (“a Bourut”); 1793 (“pour M. Telusson”); and 1794 
(“a Jacquet”). 11 Rosenberg and Peronnet have identified 
LACMA’s painting as that listed among “Tableaux et 
Portraits payes ... 1793, Psiche, pour M. Telusson.” 12 Rather 
than a preliminary sketch, therefore, LACMA’s painting 
may have been a replica of the popular subject made for a 
wealthy patron in Geneva based on the drawing now in 
Geneva. 13 The presence on the back of LACMA’s painting of 
an old stamp, “Altieri,” raises unresolved questions about 
this identification, which has also been accepted by Anne 
deHerdt. AW 


117 





















Pierre Subleyras 

(1699, Saint-Gilles-du-Gard-1749, Rome) 


Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


The E mperor Heraclius 
Carrying the Cross, 1728(?) 
Oil on canvas, 16 14 x 12 14 in. 
(41 x 31.8 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.10 



118 


Eighteenth Century 


ased on historical facts, the story of the emperor 
Heraclius (ca. 575-641) retrieving relics of the True 
Cross from the Persians and bringing them back to 
Constantinople was told with poetic license by Jacobus de 
Voragine in the Golden Legend (13th c.). In the medieval 
telling of the story, Heraclius was said to have carried the 
entire cross (whereas in reality, fragments of it were 
carefully kept in a precious casket), miraculously made 
weightless. 

The identification of the subject is important for the 
dating of the picture. Prior to Subleyras’s departure to Italy 
in 1728, Pierre Poulhariez, a rich merchant from Carcassonne 
and early patron of Subleyras, had commissioned from him 
a painting of that subject for the Chapel of the Holy Cross 
in the church of Saint Vincent at Carcassonne. The painting 
was removed and does not seem to have survived. It would 
have been unusual for Subleyras to receive another 


commission for the same subject, given its rarity. This small 
painting could then be either its study or an autograph copy 
of it. Certain elements point to an early date: a sober, almost 
unimaginative, composition and the close similarity of the 
figure of the bishop at the left to one in a painting. The 
Anointing of Louis XV (Musee des Augustins, Toulouse, inv. no. 
200411276), completed by Subleyras in 1722 after a drawing 
by his teacher Antoine Rivalz (1667^735).' On the other 
hand, the execution is not utterly different from Subleyras’s 
more mature works, and some figures, such as the boy at the 
right, display the stereotypical features that appear in many 
paintings of Subleyras’s Roman period. If one assumes that 
Subleyras delivered his painting to Poulhariez, why would 
he then have kept its sketch in Italy? Unfortunately, the 
date and circumstances of its acquisition by the Serra di 
Cardinale family are unknown, jpm 



119 















44 

Pierre Subleyras 

(1699, Saint-Gilles-du-Gard-1749, Rome) 

Seven Angels Adoring the Christ Child, 

ca. 1730-40 

Oil on canvas, 11% x 8% in. 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.9 

Provenance 


(29.8 x 22.5 cm) 


Exhibitions 




References 






120 


Eighteenth Century 


N othing is known of the origin of this painting, 
possibly an oil sketch for a larger untraced work, 
although its belonging to several important 
collections in the eighteenth century proves the esteem in 
which the composition, for which there is a drawing at the 
Louvre, was held. 1 Its rare subject may derive from the book 
of Revelation (8:2): “And I saw the seven Angels who stand 
before God.” 2 If correct, this would make this painting an 
exceedingly rare illustration of the book of Revelation in 
late Christian iconography. Another painting by Subleyras, 
representing “the Angels burning incense in front of the 
Holy Trinity,” was once at the Musee des Beaux-Arts, 
Quimper, but cannot be traced. 3 It is impossible to establish 
today if that composition relates to the Los Angeles 
painting, but its subject may derive from the following 
verse of the Apocalypse (8:3), where “another angel, who 
had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was 
given much incense to offer.” Such esoteric images could 
hardly have been commissioned by the church as their 
significance would have been lost on the laity. 

The iconography of the painting can instead be 
related to numerous devotional images commissioned by 
religious confraternities, associations of laypersons with 


charitable missions. Confraternities with a specific devotion 
to the Holy Sacrament, in particular, favored images of the 
Host or of the Mystical Lamb (occasionally displayed over 
the book of Revelation), framed by angels, whose role is to 
establish a link between the celestial and the earthly 
realms. 4 A version of the painting was executed by Joseph- 
Siffred Duplessis (1725-1802), a painter from Carpentras, 
documented in Subleyras’s Roman studio in the last years of 
the painter’s life. 5 Duplessis’s version presents notable 
differences, in particular, the substitution of the Christ 
Child for the Mystical Lamb. It is unknown if Duplessis was 
copying another version of Subleyras’s composition or 
altering it on his own, but the presence of the Mystical 
Lamb in Duplessis’s work appears to reinforce the possibil¬ 
ity of a connection between Subleyras’s painting and an 
eventual commission from a confraternity. 

A date between 1730 and 1740 has been suggested by 
Anthony M. Clark, the painting’s former owner and has 
been endorsed by Pierre Rosenberg. Its composition, with 
the figures describing a semicircle, recalls that of other 
works belonging to the artist’s maturity, such as Two Saints 
Appearing to White Penitents. 6 jpm 


121 

















Joseph-Benoit Suvee 

(1743, Bruges-1807, Rome) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



The Predication of Saint Paul, ca. 1779 
Oil on canvas, 19 % x 15 14 in. 

(50.2 x 38.7 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.24 



122 


Eighteenth Century 


T he Predication of Saint Paul was one of two sketches 
exhibited together by Joseph-Benoit Suvee at the 
1779 Paris Salon. 1 The second sketch was TheDeath of 
Cleopatra. Although the degree of finish suggests he may 
have intended The Predication of Saint Paul, like TheDeath of 
Cleopatra, to serve as a presentation sketch, Suvee never 
developed it into a full-scale painting. 2 

Saint Paul is considered one of the most important 
apostles of Christ and is traditionally held to be the author 
of fourteen of the twenty-seven books of the New 
Testament. A wealthy Jew by birth known as Saul, he was 
originally anti-Christian; following his sudden conversion, 
Paul became a missionary and preached the Gospel of Christ 
in Asia Minor and Europe. Distressed to find the city of 
Athens filled with idols and an altar to an “unknown god,” 
Paul preached the Resurrection of Christ to people in the 
marketplace and throughout the city. When the Greek 
authorities asked him to explain what he meant, he went to 
the Areopagus, the location of the city’s high court and 
temples, where he stood on the temple steps and lectured 
about the nature of Christ and the need to know God rather 
than to pray to an unknown god. It is probably this 
important event that Suvee depicts in The Predication of Saint 
Paul, in which the saint stands on the steps of a temple and 
thrusts his right arm forward, emphasizing his point to an 
attentive audience and seemingly dispelling the dark 
clouds with the light of enlightenment. 

The subject and composition of LACMA’s sketch 
suggest Suvee’s knowledge of Saint Denis Preaching the Law to 
the Gauls, an altarpiece painted in 1767 for the church of 
Saint-Roch, Paris (still in situ), by Joseph-Marie Vien 
(1716-1809), director of the F rench Academy in Rome 
during the second half of Suvee’s first trip to Italy (1772-78). 
Ten years after he exhibited LACMA’s sketch at the 1779 
Salon, Suvee referred to Vien’s composition for his closely 
related altarpiece Saint Denis Preaching, for the cathedral of 
Senlis, which he exhibited at the 1789 Salon. In the Senlis 
altarpiece, Suvee simplified Vien’s composition, eliminating 
the apparition of the Virgin and the angels and reducing 
the number of supplicants on the steps. 

In LACMA’s sketch, as in his altarpiece for Senlis and 
in that by Vien, Suvee represents the saint standing on the 
steps of an ancient temple against the backdrop of an 


ancient city. A group of people have gathered to hear him 
speak. Intriguingly, the artist seems to move the viewer into 
Vien’s composition, taking the vantage point next to the 
seated woman and naked child, as if looking out from Vien’s 
composition. The saint, now seen from the opposite side, 
looms above, his arm outstretched in a manner that allows 
his cape to sweep upward, enclosing his form and accentu¬ 
ating his bold gesture. By moving Paul closer to the picture 
plane, Suvee eliminates all extraneous narrative from Vien’s 
composition and focuses the viewer’s attention on Paul. 
Above, open sky replaces the Virgin Mary and the angels, 
and a smaller, quieter audience composed of people who 
appear to contemplate the saint’s words replaces Vien’s 
large, emotional crowd. The temple Suvee includes in the 
background of his sketch at LACMA, which enhances the 
sense of classical calm, was undoubtedly based on his 
numerous sketches of Roman ruins, such as The Exterior View 
of the Temple of Segeste (Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 32987, 
recto). The sale of Suvee’s estate following his death in 1807 
also included numerous drawings by the artist of individual 
figures and compositions, counterproofs of drawings and 
academic figures, as well as drawings and prints after works 
by other artists, all reflecting his classical training. 3 

Both Suvee and Vien were inspired by Raphael’s 
enormously popular tapestiy series, the Acts of the Apostles, 
which especially appealed to the Neoclassical tastes of the 
Napoleonic era. In Suvee’s sketch Saint Paul stands elevated 
on three steps of a temple, as in Raphael’s cartoon Saint Paul 
Preaching in Athens (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, on loan to 
the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, inv. no. royal 
loans.7), but gestures in a manner similar to that of Saint 
Paul in another of Raphael’s tapestries. The Blinding ofElymas 
(Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, on loan to the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, London, inv. no. royal loans.8). Suvee 
also adapted the figure of the man engulfed by his robes 
with downcast eyes from Raphael’s Saint Paul Preaching in 
Athens. Raphael’s designs were widely known not only 
through the originals but also through prints and the many 
woven copies made in Flanders, England, and France. As 
part of his academic training as a pensionnaire at the French 
Academy in Rome, Suvee, like Vien, would have copied the 
original tapestries in the Sistine Chapel. 4 AW 


123 













46 


Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Pierre-Henri 
de Valenciennes 

(1750, Toulouse-1819, Paris) 


Landscape with Ruins, possibly 1782-85 The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 13 x 19 in. Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

, „ v M. 2000 . 179.29 

(33 X 48.3 cm) 



124 


Eighteenth Century 


F rench artists had sketched after nature since at least 
the seventeenth century, but it was not until the late 
1770s that they actually brought their paints and 
canvases outdoors to record what they saw. By 1830 painting 
enplein air (in the open air) from nature in oils had become 
an almost universally accepted practice among landscape 
artists. Later in the century, that practice would form the 
foundation of the Impressionist movement. 

Landscape with Ruins is typical of the many oil sketches 
by Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes, one of the most important 
early practitioners of plein-air painting at the end of the 
eighteenth century. Painted in oil on paper and later 
mounted on canvas, the work has the appearance of a 
rapidly executed sketch left unfinished in the lower left 
corner. In contrast to the traditional method of laying in 
broad areas of color before adding detail, the artist has 
worked across the composition with rapid brushstrokes of 
different widths and densities to render the relationships of 
lights, darks, colors, and textures. Valenciennes describes 
the sky with the same spontaneity, adding and blending 
paint to produce the desired balance of light and sense of 
transience. Although the sky often is his major focus, as in 
Rocca diPapa: Mountains Hidden by Clouds, here it seems to 
serve only to help define his true interest: the rich, multi- 
textured ruin overgrown with vegetation. Once he had 
captured this, he abandoned the painting, leaving it 
unfinished. 


More than a study of an individual motif and less than 
a topographical view, the sketch is what Valenciennes called 
“a composition after nature.” Typically uncomposed, the 
scene appears to be a fragment of a larger whole, giving the 
viewer a sense of occupying the artist’s space. Although the 
exact location remains unknown, Landscape with Ruins is 
characteristic of the sketches Valenciennes made in Italy 
between 1782 and 1785. In 1781 the artist had traveled to 
Paris, where he said he had learned from Joseph Vernet 
(1714-1789) about vanishing points and the importance of 
using the sky as a source of light. It is likely that Vernet also 
encouraged him to draw and paint directly from nature. 1 

The size of Landscape with Ruins, 13 by 19 inches, 
suggests it was intended as an independent work rather 
than as a study for a larger painting. Drawings annotated 
with color notes indicate that Valenciennes sometimes 
executed paintings in the studio based on drawings; 
however, only one sketch by Valenciennes has been con¬ 
nected to a finished work. By the end of the eighteenth 
century, colored plein-air sketches, such as Landscape with 
Ruins, had gained wider acceptance. Although none of the 
landscapes exhibited by Valenciennes at the Paris Salons has 
been identified as a sketch, it is possible some, such as Un 
petitpaysage, vue d’ltalie (Salon of 1791, no. 20), were plein-air 
studies similar to Landscape with Ruins. 2 AW 


















47 

Joseph-Marie Vien 

(1716, Montpellier-1809, Paris) 

Venus Emerging from the Sea, ca. 1754-55 
Oil on canvas, 12 % x 16 J 4 in. 

(32.4x41.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.17 

Provenance 


Inscribed on the back: Esquisse deM. Vienfaite a Rome 


Exhibitions 


(by a later hand) 


References 






126 


Eighteenth Century 


T his small sketch relates, as noted by Thomas 

Gaehtgens and Jacques Lugand, to a large composi¬ 
tion commissioned by Empress Elisabeta Petrovna 
(1709-1762) for her newly built residence of Tsarskoye Selo. 
The painting was severely damaged during World War II, 
and despite its subsequent restoration, offers only a partial 
idea of its original appearance. Returning from Rome in 
1750, Joseph-Marie Vien was elected to the Royal Academy 
of Painting and Sculpture in 1754, a distinction that 
fostered his career and brought him to the attention of 
important patrons throughout Europe, the Russian 
empress among them. 

While elaborating a new style more rigorously based 
on antique models, Vien was still carrying on the great 
tradition of French decorative painting exemplified by 
artists of the earlier generation, notably Jean-Baptiste- 
Marie Pierre and Vien’s teacher Charles-Joseph Natoire. The 
closest model for Vien’s Venus Emerging from the Sea is Pierre’s 
painting of the same subject exhibited at the 1746 Salon. 1 

Two more works have been related to the Russian 
painting: a lost sketch of the same subject that figured in 
the Vien sale 2 and a drawing at the Albertina, Vienna (inv. no. 
15293); however, the completely different composition of 
the latter work makes its connection to the painting at 
Tsarskoye Selo less certain, jpm 


127 

















48 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Francois-Andre Vincent 

(1747-1816, Paris) 


Democritus among the Abderitans, 

1784 (?) 

Oil on canvas, 18 x 21% in. 
(45-7X55-2 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.26 



128 


Eighteenth Century 


T he subject of the painting is the apocryphal story of 
the pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus as told by 
the fabulist Jean de La Fontaine (Fables 8.26). 
Misunderstood by his compatriots, Democritus is mocked 
by them. More precisely, the scene chosen by Frangois- 
Andre Vincent illustrates the visit of the physician 
Hippocrates, who was sent by the townspeople to attempt 
to cure Democritus from his manic study of science and 
philosophy. The subject is rare in painting, even though 
single figures of Democritus—the laughing philosopher— 
are abundant and were treated by Jusepe de Ribera and 
Rembrandt, among others. As noted by Jean-Pierre Cuzin, 1 
the subject is not just anecdotal but also reflects an interest 
in deeper and more existential themes. Democritus’s 
theories inspired the materialist philosophy of Epicurus, 
whose philosophy recognized moderation, self-sufficiency, 
and solitary studies. These, still according to Cuzin, may 
have resonated with Vincent’s own convictions. 2 

The traditional identification of this painting with the 
one exhibited at the 1791 Salon has recently been challenged 
by Cuzin. Vincent often repeated his compositions, and the 
imprecision of the written sources complicates the history of 


the painting. 3 Cuzin’s main argument is based on stylistic 
grounds, as he finds the composition of the painting, its 
treatment of individual figures, and its execution closer to 
Vincent’s earlier works. The same author finds it unlikely 
that Vincent would have kept a work for six years before 
showing it at the Salon. In fact, a painting of that subject, 
dated 1784, was sold in 1820, and again in 1910. If this is, 
indeed, the Los Angeles painting, it must imply that its date 
has been erased. 

A sketch ( esquisse ) of the subject was shown as part of 
the collection of the Societe des Amis des Arts in 1791 at the 
Musee du Louvre, shortly before the opening of the salon 
(where Vincent exhibited a painting of that subject). The 
term esquisse might be misleading and indicate a finished 
painting of small dimensions. Could Vincent have then 
shown a small painting—this one or another, possibly more 
sketchily executed—of that subject at the above-mentioned 
exhibition, and a larger one at the salon? Or was the LACMA 
painting shown at both? All possibilities remain open. No 
other version of the subject has, however, surfaced to date. 
JPM 


129 















49 

Provenance 

Jean-Antoine Watteau 

(1684, Valenciennes-1721, Nogent- 
sur-Marne) 

The Petfect Accord, ca. 1719 

Oil on chestnut panel, 13 x 11 in. 

(33 x 27-9 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

AC1999.18.1 

Exhibitions 




References 




Technical report 






130 


Eighteenth Century 


A park, perhaps at dusk. A group of musicians occupy 
the center of the composition: a flute player, a singer 
holding a score, but apparently not singing, and a 
guitar player, leaning on his instrument rather than playing 
it. To their left a couple passes the group by, seemingly 
unaware of its presence. To the right a herm of Pan, god of 
the gardens, reaffirms the bucolic character of the scene. 
Jean-Antoine Watteau is credited as the inventor of the fete 
galante, a type of painting whose subjects evoke a world of 
elegance and sociability, with a slight touch of eroticism. 

The genre enjoyed an immense success and was transmitted 
later in the century by Watteau’s followers Nicolas Lancret 
and Jean-Baptiste Pater, among others. Adding to the 
ambiguity of his subjects, Watteau did not give titles to his 
paintings. The Perfect Accord was the name bestowed by Jean 
de Jullienne, Watteau’s friend and dealer, who had most of 
the artist’s compositions engraved and who organized their 
sale after his death. Likewise, it was Jullienne who often 
paired paintings by Watteau, mostly for commercial reasons. 
The Perfect Accord, when in the collection of Nicolas de Henin, 
its first owner, was described as the pendant to The Surprise 
(J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 2017.72), but it 
is unlikely that the paintings had been conceived as such by 
Watteau, as their compositions offer no similarities. In fact, 
when, after passing through Jean de Jullienne’s collection, 1 
The Perfect Accord was sold in 1762 (as part of the Germain 
Louis de Chauvelin sale), it was presented as the pendant of 
another painting entitled La lorgneuseA 

If The Perfect Accord bears only a tenuous relationship to 
the other composition that it has been paired with, it does 
instead have a strong physical relationship to The Italian 
Serenade at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm (inv. no. NM 
5650). Both paintings were executed on chestnut panels 
that were originally part of a single, larger door of a coach or 
sedan chair sawed in half. X-radiographs of the paintings 
reveal an elaborate design under Watteau’s compositions, 
with animals surrounding the initials of the carriage’s 
owner. The design of the door is typical of the production of 
Claude Audran III and was most likely painted by Watteau 
himself in his studio, where he worked as Audran’s 
assistant. 3 Good chestnut panels were probably hard 


enough to find and costly enough to justify Watteau’s desire 
to salvage the door upon, one assumes, the dismantling of 
the coach. Furthermore, the X-radiographs not only reveal 
the original decoration of the panel but also the intermedi¬ 
ary states of the final compositions. 

Watteau often reworked his compositions, and The 
Perfect Accord is no exception. The comte de Caylus, a 
connoisseur well acquainted with the artist, commented on 
the unusual technique Watteau employed to do so. 
Mentioning that the artist did not prepare his grounds as 
thoroughly as did other painters, Caylus maintained that 
Watteau often “rubbed his paintings with thick oil, and 
painted on top of it” and also remarked that whatever 
immediate benefit could be derived from the process would 
not last forever. 4 Under The Perfect Accord lies another, related 
composition. Absent from it is the couple at the left: instead 
a Pierrot-like figure stands in the background, and a woman 
sits on the foreground next to the guitar player. Watteau’s 
technique, as described by Caylus, manages to conceal the 
figure of Pierrot, simply replacing it with a vaporous blur 
suggesting depth. 

There are several drawings related to the painting. 
Best known is perhaps the vigorous double study for the 
head of the man playing the flute at the J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Los Angeles, 5 but Martin Eidelberg has also 
identified a drawing for the seated woman at the 
Indianapolis Museum of Art, 6 in addition to a drawing in 
Chicago long connected with the painting. 7 

The date of the painting has been the subject of some 
debate, even though most authors recognize it as a mature 
work of the artist. Dated as early as 1717, or as late as 1720 
elsewhere, the present writer locates it to about 1719, just 
before Watteau’s visit to England. 8 

The Perfect Accord is a well-documented painting, 
traceable from its origin until its acquisition by the 
museum. It was, however, not until its purchase that it 
gained some exposure, as the painting, owned by the same 
family, had seldom been shown in the twentieth century. Its 
popularity is attested by several copies, some of which have 
been occasionally confused with the original. 9 jpm 


131 













ENDNOTES 


13 Beaufort (back to entry) 

1 The Brutus stories were available at the time in 
the original Greek and Latin, as well as in 
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century compila¬ 
tions of ancient history in French. Among the 
most widely read were Charles Rollin’s Histoire 
romaine (1738), Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Discours 
sur I’histoire universelle (1681), and Montesquieu’s 
Considerations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains 
etde leur decadence (1734). See Baxter 2006 regarding 
Brutus as an exemplum virtutis and the interpretive 
conflict and competing political meaning of 
Brutus during the French Revolution. 

2 The correct attribution of LACMA’s painting was 
made by Jean Seznec (Seznec and Adhemar 
1957-67, vol. 4 [1967], p. 146, fig. 83), who 
recognized it from the description of the 1771 
Salon picture. For discussion of the attribution, 
see J. Patrice Marandel in Omaha 2002-3, p* 40. 

3 Rosenberg and Schnapper 1970, p. 760. 

4 London 1979, no. 5, ill. 

5 Rosenblum 1961, p. 11. 

6 Lee 1969, pp. 360-63; Rosenblum 1970. 

14 Berthelemy (back to entry) 

1 Voile 1979, pp. 31-32. 

2 Voile 1979, p. 31. 

3 Dacier 1909-21, vol. 2 (1910), no. 4. 

15 Boilly (back to entry) 

1 Fort Worth-Washington 1995-96, pp. i46ff. 

2 Lille 1988-89, pp. 118-19, no- 41 * ill- 

3 Lille 2011-12, pp. 202-4. 

1 6 Boilly (back to entry) 

1 J. Patrice Marandel in Lille 2011-12, p. 161, notes 
that the signature and date are curiously placed in 
the lower left corner in an area that would have 
been covered by the mount. 

17 Boucher (back to entry) 

1 The pair in Rennes is probably the one once 
owned by the painter Dandre-Bardon (his sale, 
Paris, 23 June 1783, lot 5). The paintings appear 
later in the sale of the marquis de Montesquiou 
(Paris, 9 Dec. 1788, lot 236); the Regnault- 
Delalande sale (Paris, Nov. 1793, lot 20); and the 
sale of the chevalier de Damery (Paris, 18 Nov. 1803, 
lot 2). The pair is then broken up but reunited in 
the La Motte de Broons collection before being 
acquired by the museum in 1988. See Strasbourg- 
Tours 2003-4, PP-104-7. 


2 See Pierre Rosenberg, “The Mysterious 
Beginnings of the Young Boucher,” and Alastair 
Laing, “Boucher: The Search for an Idiom,” in 
New York-Detroit-Paris 1986-87, pp. 41-55,56-72. 

3 Lot 72. Black chalk, pen and brown ink, brown 
wash, 7 x 10 in. (17.8 x 27 cm). The drawing did 
not sell. 


18 


BOUcher ( back to entry) 


1 J. Patrice Marandel, in Houston and other cities 
1973-75, no. 3, was the first to recognize the 
connection between the sketch and the engraving. 

2 Alastair Laing, in Omaha 2002-3, no. 15, suggests: 
“Boucher may have been given the challenge of 
weaving these and the bust into a convincing 
ensemble—something that required the pictorial 
eye of a painter as much as Lemoyne’s gift as a 
sculptor.” Perhaps with this in mind, he notes 
that “the handling of the sketch—and even more 
so, the character of the two putti —suggests a date 
closer to the commission of the monument, 
around 1735, than to that of its completion.” 

Laing does not mention the engraving. The 
relationship of the sketch to the engraving more 
strongly suggests a date close to 1743. 

3 This history and description of the monument are 
from Reau 1927, pp. 62-64. Reau was not aware of 
the sketch by Boucher. 


20 Chardin (back to entry) 


1 Frances Terpak, in Los Angeles 2001-2, p. 195. 


21 Deshays (back to entry) 


1 Bancel 2008, p. 23. 

2 Bancel 2008, p. 108. 

3 Bancel 2008, p. 107. 


' 2 / 2 . Desportes (back to entry) 

1 Dogs have for centuries been important symbols 
of status, alluding to the aristocratic privilege of 
the hunt. Already in the fourteenth century, most 
noblemen kept large numbers of hunting dogs. In 
Livre de chasse, Gaston Phoebus, comte de Foix, who 
was said to have owned 1,600 hunting dogs, noted, 
“a hound is the noblest and most reasonable beast 
that God has ever created!” Packs of dogs pursuing 
deer or other animals of prey appear regularly in 
medieval manuscripts, tapestries, and paintings. 
In the mid-sixteenth century, dogs began to 
appear in portraits as status symbols. In 1548 
Jacopo Bassano painted what is considered the 
first portrait of dogs in Western art, a portrayal of 
his own two hound dogs in a landscape next to a 
tree stump, for Count Zantani, a Venetian 
patrician (Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. RF 


1994-23). About 1625 Guercino (aka Giovanni 
Francesco Barbieri, 1591-1666), like Bassano 
known primarily as a painter of religious subjects, 
painted a portrait of a mastiff standing on a porch 
of an elegant house against a palatial landscape 
(Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, inv. no. 
F.1984.2.P). The coat of arms painted on the dog’s 
collar suggests that he was a prized hunting dog 
of Count Filippe Aldrovandi. 

2 Oil on canvas, 1.67 x 1.77 m (Lastic and Jacky 2010, 
vol. 2, no. P558). 

3 Oil on paper mounted on cardboard, 30 x 46.3 cm 
(Lastic and Jacky 2010, vol. 2, no. P204). 

23 Doyen (back to entry) 

1 Sandoz 1969, pp. 84-99. 

2 Reimers 1807, p. 153. 

3 Suslovi928. 

4 Sandoz 1975, pp. 89,93, pi. 284-I. 

24 Galloche (back to entry) 

1 Ca. 1640-45, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 
DC, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Collection, inv. no. 

1970-17-107- 

2 Louis Gongenot, “Louis Galloche,” in Dussieux et 
al. 1854, vol. 2, pp. 289-307. 

3 A “Saint Martin bringing a child back to life” and 

a “Saint Martin receiving the stigmata.” Gongenot, 
“Louis Galloche,” p. 304. 

4 Musee du Louvre, Paris, Departement des Arts 
Graphiques, inv. nos. 26668,26669,26670. 

25 Halle (back to entry) 

1 Paris 1991-92, pp. 172-74, nos. 116-18. 

2 Paris 1991-92, p. 31. 

2 6 Hoildon (back to entry) 

1 Guilhem Scherf, “Voltaire nu,” in Paris-New 
York-Stockholm 2003-4, P- 248 (on Pigalle’s 
portrait of Voltaire); Scherf, “L’iconographie 
sculptee de Voltaire,” in Paris 1994-95, P- 224. 

2 Reau 1964, vol. 1, p. 273. 

3 An excellent reassessment is provided by Guilhem 
Scherf, in Scherf 2010. 

4 Ulrike Mathies, in Versailles 2004, p. 154, quoting 
the journalist Francois Metra (1738-1804). 

5 The versions owned by the empress are discussed 
by Christoph Frank, “Voltaire (1694-1778),” in 
Versailles 2004, pp. 163-65. 

6 Scherf, in Paris-New York-Stockholm 2003-4, 
p. 250. 


132 


Eighteenth Century 


7 Duisberg-Karlsruhe-Gotha-Paris 1989, p. 299; 
Reau 1964, pp. 274-75. The gilt bronze example 
(H. 8 in.; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. 

R. B. K. 16932) conforms to this description 
(Leeuwenberg and Halsema-Kubes 1973, no. 758, 
pp. 434-35). The composition is somewhat 
different from the life-size sculptures, as for 
example, the proper left hand hangs from the 
armrest instead of gripping it, and the hair is 
longer and thicker and has a profusion of curls 
around the nape of the neck. The drapery seems 
less generous, and the overall impression is of 
narrower proportions. 

8 Duisberg-Karlsruhe-Gotha-Paris 1989, p. 299. 

9 Reau 1964, vol. 1, p. 377; similar agreements 
arranged by Houdon are discussed by Scherf, 
“Sophie Arnould (1740-1802) dans le role-titre 

d Tphigenie enAulide de Gluck,” in Versailles 2004, 
pp. 96,98. 

10 Poulet, in Versailles 2004, p. 266. 

11 The Montpellier version is made of mixed media: 
the chair is reinforced plaster, and the base is 
wood. As in the Los Angeles example, the back of 
the chair lacks the upper horizontal rail, which is 
complete in the marble versions. See Scherf, in 
Paris-New York-Stockholm 2003-4, P- 250. The 
Geneva example is painted white, so at first it 
does not appear to be terracotta. (Houdon 
painted some of his plasters to resemble bronze 
or terracotta; some terracottas were painted 
white.) Both the Geneva and Montpellier 
examples are generally assumed to have been 
made in the 1780s. They have secure eighteenth- 
century provenances: Scherf believes that the 
Montpellier example is the one mentioned in the 
sale of Houdon’s atelier. The history and versions 
are summarized by Scherf, “Voltaire assis,” in 
Versailles 2004, pp. 170-71. Other variations occur 
in the chair (for example, rectangular legs or 
columnar legs). 

12 The mold lines in the New York example 
correspond to the same lines identified in the 
Montpellier version by Catherine Chevillot while 
she was at the Center for Research and 
Restoration, Versailles, during conservation 
treatment that included removal of a coat of 
white paint. Mme Chevillot kindly confirmed 
the location of the mold lines. The same sections, 
though indistinct, can be discerned in 
photographs of the Coty version. 

13 Scherf, “Houdon ‘au-dessus de tous les artistes 
modernes,”’ in Versailles 2004, pp. 21-23, gives 
an excellent account of this aspect of Houdon’s 
work. 

14 Gerard Hubert, La sculpture dans I’ltalie 
napoleonienne (Paris, 1964), p. 344, quoted in 
Baudry 1978, p. 136 n. 46. 

15 Arnason 1975, p. 132, provides the list of items 
auctioned from Houdon’s studio after his death: 
no. 64: “le grand Ecorche [flayed figure]”; no. 65: 
“the mold of the preceding figure. The 
acquisition of this mold will convey ownership 
of the figure.” Scherf believes that Houdon had 
the other molds destroyed when he was forced to 
leave his government-sponsored studios at the 
Royal Library (personal communication to Mary 
Levkoff); Scherf felt that the molds must have 
been too cumbersome to preserve. 


16 Arnason 1975, p. 300. Also Giacometti 1929, vol. 1, 
p. 35: “alone worthy of immortalizing its creator.” 
See also Scherf, “L’iconographie sculptee de 
Voltaire,” in Paris 1994-95, pp. 224-25: it 
“dominates the imagery of Voltaire ... [the] 
masterpiece of Houdon.” 

17 Giacometti 1929, vol. 1, p. 59. 

18 Scherf, in Versailles 2004, p. 167. 

19 Clark 1969, p. 245: “one of the most intelligent 

men that has ever lived_He is smiling— 

the smile of reason,” and fig. 171 (Seated Voltaire 
in Geneva). 


27 Jouvenet (back to entry) 


1 Schnapper 1974, pp. 133-36,176,211-13. 

2 The engraving by Jean Audran (1667-1756) after 
Jouvenet’s Raising of Lazarus was probably the 
source for the German artist Johann Eckstein (ca. 
1736-1817), who made a copy in reverse, in wax 
with polychromy (Cincinnati Art Museum, inv. no. 
1916.287). 

3 Schnapper and Gouzi 2010, p. 178, notes the weak 
rendering of the face of Christ, which he 
considered closer to that in Jean II Restout’s 
(1692-1768?) Christ Healing the Sick, of 1725 (Palais 
des Beaux-Arts, Lille). 


28 


Legros (back to entry) 


1 Broeder 1967; Angela Negro, “La decorazione 
Clementina di San Giovanni in Laterano,” in 
Urbino-Rome 2001-2, pp. 100-103. 

2 Enggass 1976, vol. 1, pp. 85-87,142-44, and vol. 2, 
figs. 30-32, 35 - 39 * 135 - 42 . 

3 Enggass 1976, vol. 1, pp. 99-102, and vol. 2, figs. 
57-66. 

4 Desmas 2004, pp. 796-805. 

5 Conforti 1977, vol. 2, pp. 267,276. 

6 On this topic, Conforti 1977, vol. 2, esp. pp. 799, 
800-803, with previous bibliography. 

7 Cardinal Benedetto Pamphili owned a plaster cast 
of the model made by Legros, now lost: Conforti 
1977, vol. 2, pp. 235,317 (under no. 12, fol. 74r). 


29 Lemoyne (back to entry) 


1 Paris-Philadelphia-Fort Worth 1991-92, p. 255, 
%- 3 - 

2 Bordeaux 1984, p. 106, “described as black and 
white chalk on blue paper, entitled Lagrossesse 

de Callisto, formerly in the Boileau collection (sale, 
4 Mar. 1782, lot 141) and later in the Silvestre 
collection (sale, 28 Feb. 1811, lot 381). 

3 See Bordeaux 1984, pp. 105-6. 

4 Paris-Philadelphia-Fort Worth 1991-92, p. 255, 
fig. 2. 


30 Lethiere (back to entry) 

1 Livy, Ah urbe condita libri 3.44-58. 

2 Rosenblum 1967, pp. 65-66. Gravelot’s 1739 
engraving of The Death of Virginia served as the 
frontispiece for volume two of the second edition 
of the English translation of Rollin’s text, 
published in London in 1754. Known as Gravelot, 
Hubert Frangois Gravelot (1699-1773) was an 
influential French designer, engraver, and 
illustrator, who spent most of his career in 
London. 

3 Serullaz 2005, p. 76. 

4 See Marandel 1980, pp. 12-17. 

5 Cited in Paris 1974-75, under no. 93. 

6 For a full discussion of the preparatory drawings 
and sketches for the painting at the Louvre, see 
Paris 1974-75, pp. 76-82. Many of the drawings of 
individual figures show the artist working out 
the figure of Virginia and those immediately 
around her. 

7 See Paris 1974-75, fig. 2. 

8 The figure of the centurion is based on an 
academic drawing of a nude by Lethiere (Musee 
du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. RF 52618). See Paris 
1974 - 75 . fig- 15 - 

9 See Paris 1974-75, fig. 7. 

10 The architectural setting of the scene in the 
drawings is particularly close to that in Doyen’s 
painting. See Sandoz 1975, pp. 31-32, pi. VIII. 

11 Albuquerque 1980, no. 43, suggests a date about 
1800. Writing about the Louvre’s acquisition of 
twelve drawings related to the painting by 
Lethiere, Arlette Serullaz suggested that 
LACMA’s sketch was among the first projects, but 
that she was unable to date it precisely. See Paris 
1974 - 75 * P* 82 n. 5. 

12 Sandoz 1975, p. 31, no. 14. Although not 
mentioned by Sandoz, the figure of Virginia 
supported by another woman was probably 
inspired by Domenichino’s Martyrdom of Saint 
Cecilia, also in San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome. 

31 LOO (back to entry) 

1 Wikisource contributors, “Plutarch’s Lives 
(Clough)/Theseus,” Wikisource, https://en 
.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Plutarch 
%27S_Lives_(Clough)/Theseus&oldid 
=7029849 (accessed May 16,2018). 

2 For which see Nice-Clermond-Ferrand-Nancy 
1977* no. 34. 

32 LOO (back to entry) 

1 Marie-Catherine Sahut, “Les Graces,” in Paris 
1984-85, p.374. 

2 Francis 2002, p. 180, notes: “The Three Graces are 
among the most consistently rendered motifs of 
the Roman world. The group of the three, nude, 
embracing women is extant in statuary and 
numerous two-dimensional art forms, but all 
adhere to a basic formula of pose, appearance, 
figural type, and composition, with only minor 
variations.” 


133 































3 Sahut, “Les Graces,” in Paris 1984-85, contrasts 
the composition of the Van Loo painting in the 
Chateau de Chenonceau (his second version of the 
composition) with the painting by Raphael and 
the one by Rubens in Madrid, both of which 
represent the central figure from the rear. She 
notes only that Loo adopted the decorative 
hairstyles and pearls from Rubens but does not 
recognize the more significant borrowings. She 
also does not mention the Rubens in Paris. 

4 Lastic 1974, p. 193. Smith 1975, p. 79 n. 18, notes 
that Hennin, who had worked in the offices of the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Versailles, was a 
French resident in Poland (1763-64). 

5 Diderot 1984, p. 182. 

6 Diderot 1995, vol. 1, p. 10: “It’s difficult to imagine 
a colder composition, Graces more insipid, less 
aerial, less attractive. They have neither life, nor 
action, nor character.” According to Loo’s early 
biographer Michel-Frangois Dandre-Bardon 
(Dandre-Bardon 1765, pp. 62,65), Pierre-Michel 
Hennin was the owner of the painting now at 
Chenonceau. 

7 Lastic 1974» p-195- 

8 Probably Prince Ludwig Karl Salm-Salm 
(1721-1778), who ruled from 1770 until his death 
in 1778. 

9 J. Patrice Marandel in Houston and other cities 
1973 - 75 , no. 86. 

33 LOO (back to entry) 

1 Nice-Clermond-Ferrand-Nancy 1977, p. 103, under, 
no. 273. 

34 Menageot (back to entry) 

1 Willk-Brocard 1978, p. 66. The series also included 
TheDeath ofDugueschin by Nicolas-Guy Brenet 
(1777), The Continence of Bayard by Louis Jean 
Jacques Durameau (1777), President Mole Arrested by 
theFrondeurs by Frangois-Andre Vincent (1779), The 
Battle of Marcel and Maillart (1783), The Courageous 
Action ofEustache de Saint-Pierre at the Siege of Calais 
(1779), The Recapture of Paris by the Constable of 
Richemontby Jean-Simon Berthelemy (1787), Sully 
at the Feet of Henri IV by Jean Jacques Frangois Le 
Barbier (1783), and The Assassination of the Admiral de 
Coligny by Joseph-Benoit Suvee (1787). 

2 Willk-Brocard 1978, p. 66; Lossky 1967, p. 50, 
suggests that this may indicate that the LACMA 
sketch was in the countess’s collection. 

3 Diderot 1957-67, vol. 4 (1967), p. 369, no. 151. 

4 Girodet-Trioson 1829, vol. 2, p. 362, cited in 
Cox-Rearick 1995, p. 410. 

5 Rosenblum 1967, pp. 28ff. 

6 Cox-Rearick 1995, p. 411. 

7 Cox-Rearick 1997, p. 217: “Under the Empire in 
the first decade of the century, pictures treating 
themes [of] Frangois and the arts were favored 
particularly by Empress Josephine... .Later, 
under the Restoration, such works proliferated, 
receiving high visibility at the yearly Salons.” 


35 Natoire (back to entry) 

1 Paris 1983, pp. 121-22, nos. 105,106. 

2 For a complete account and a tentative 
reconstruction of this commission, see Paris- 
Luneville 1986, pp. 262-66; and Colin Bailey, 
in Paris-Philadelphia-Fort Worth 1991-92, 
pp. 348-53. 

3 Paris-Luneville 1986, p. 266. 

36 PajOU (back to entry) 

1 See catalogue entry by Guilhem Scherf in 
Paris-New York 1997-98, no. 138, pp. 352-53. 

2 James David Draper, “Portraits,” in Paris-New 
York 1997-98, pp. 221-27. 

3 Ecole Nationale Superieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris, 
on deposit at the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Valence: 
see catalogue entry by Draper in Paris-New York 
1997-98, no. 108, pp. 264-67. 

37 Regnault (back to entry) 

1 Fare 1995, p. 111. 

38 Res tOUt (back to entry) 

1 Engerand 1901, p. 426. 

2 Gift of Wildenstein & Co., 2004, inv. no. 
M.2004.174 (Willk-Brocard 2018, p. 160, no. 77P). 

3 Willk-Brocard 2018, p. 160, no. 78P. 

4 Willk-Brocard 2001, p. 464. 

39 Robert (back to entry) 

1 The painting is neither signed nor dated. On 
stylistic grounds, it has been ascribed to about 
1770. We are suggesting a later date. 

2 At the time of Hubert Robert’s visit to Rome, the 
vase was in the gardens of the Villa Borghese. 
Bought by Napoleon from his brother-in-law 
Camillo Borghese, it is now at the Musee du 
Louvre, Paris. Robert executed several sketches of 
an artist (himself?) drawing the Borghese Vase, 
one in the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Besangon, the 
other in the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Valence, for 
which see Cayeux 1985, pp. 293-95, ill. 

3 See Lemagny 1968. See in particular no. 26 (“Palais 
de Justice”) and no. 30 (“Interior View of the 
Museum”). 

4 Washington 2016, p. 239. 

5 Red chalk, 378 x 295 mm, inv. no. D.68; see Cayeux 
1985, pp. 296-97, no. 84. 

6 Red and black chalk, 370 x 290 mm, inv. no. D.60; 
see Cayeux 1985, pp. 258-59, no. 70. 


40 Sablet (back to entry) 

1 A Mars and Minerva, for instance, was criticized by 
U. Hegner for being stiff and tired (“compassee et 
eculee”; Hegner 1805. 

2 Established in 1752, the competition organized by 
the Fine Arts Academy of Parma invited foreign 
artists to submit their entries anonymously. The 
winner relinquished his painting to the academy 
but was rewarded with a valuable gold medal. 

41 Sablet (back to entry) 

1 Established in 1752, the competition organized by 
the Fine Arts Academy of Parma invited foreign 
artists to submit their entries anonymously. The 
winner relinquished his painting to the academy 
but was rewarded with a valuable gold medal. 

2 Nantes-Lausanne-Rome 1985, p. 47. 

3 Nantes-Lausanne-Rome 1985, p. 46, no. 5, citing 
the following archival sources for that 
information: Archives Cantonale, Vaud; Memorial 
J. H. Polier de Vernand CXLI. The sketch does not 
reappear until 1846, in the collection of James 
Audeoud in Geneva. 

42 Saint-Ours (back to entry) 

1 Jean-Marie Marquis, in Geneva 2015-16, p. 46, also 
suggests the additional influence of Gian Lorenzo 
Bernini’s famous statu e Apollo and Daphne, of 
1622-25, which Saint-Ours could have seen in the 
Borghese collection, Rome. 

2 Geneva 2015-16, no. 4, p. 46: oil on panel, 
35.8x40.2 cm. 

3 Today the palace is occupied by the Associazione 
Bancaria Italiana. 

4 See Schiavo 1962, pp. 141-42. 

5 Rome-Dijoni983, p.129. 

6 Today the space over the door is occupied by a 
painting of Diana scolding Cupid, a subject that 
does not fit the iconography of the room. 

7 Omaha 2002-3, P- 64, translation of Rome-Dijon 
1983, p. 129 n. 3. 

8 Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006a, p. 255, fig. 10: 
“Psyche et VAmour, 1791. Graphite, pen and sepia, 
sepia wash, white gouache, on brown paper, glue 
ground, and mounted on cream cardboard, 

32 x 40 cm.” 

9 Baud-Bovy and Boissonnas 1903, ill. p. 84 and 

p. 170, no. 170. The author notes that the painting 
was in the collection of Dr. H. Goudet, Geneva. 

See Rome-Dijon 1983, p. 129 n. 3. 

10 Rome-Dijon 1983, p. 129 n. 3 and fig. 17. The 
dimensions, which are apparently given as 
length by height, are approximately equal 
to 1.45 by 1.15 meters. 

11 Baud-Bovy and Boissonnas 1903, p. 153. 

12 Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006a, p. 255, and 
Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006, p. 57. 


134 


Eighteenth Century 


13 The similar size and finished appearance of the 
drawing may indicate that it, too, was a recording 
of the original rather than a preliminary study. 
“Telusson” was probably Jean-Isaac de Thelusson 
(1764-1828), comte de Sorcy, who was the eldest 
son of George-Tobie de Thelusson, a Genevan 
banker, and Marie-Jeanne Girardot de 
Vermenoux (1736-1781), comtesse de Sorcy, who 
was portrayed by Jacques-Louis David in a 
portrait now in the Neue Pinakothek, Munich. A 
Swiss national living in Paris, he and his wife 
built the luxurious Hotel Thellusson (begun in 
1778). Jean-Isaac de Thelusson and his wife, like 
Saint-Ours, lived in exile in Geneva during the 
French Revolution. 

43 Subleyras (back to entry) 

1 Ill. in Paris-Rome 1987, p. 57. 

44 Subleyras (back to entry) 

1 Black chalk heightened with white on blue paper, 
203 x 149 mm, Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 
32934, ill. in Paris-Rome 1987, p. 221, no. 50. 

2 I wish to thank Nicolas Lesur (letter to the author, 
20 May 2018) for clarifying the subject. 

3 Inv. no. 818, legs Silguy, see Odette Arnaud, 
“Subleyras, 1699 a 1749,” in Dimier 1928-30, vol. 2 
(1930), p. 76, no. 35. 

4 Paris 1991-92, pp. 131-51- 

5 Musee des Beaux-Arts, Carpentras, ill. in 
Paris-Rome 1987, fig. 2, p. 221. 

6 Oil on canvas, 40 x 30 cm, Musee Fabre, 
Montpellier, inv. no. 830-1-4. The painting has 
been dated to about 1734-38 but could also be 
slightly later. See Paris-Rome 1987, pp. 226-27, ill- 

45 Suvee (back to entry) 

1 Paris 1779, p. 37, no. 191. Suvee exhibited a total of 
ten works at the 1779 Salon. 

2 The livret cited the dimensions of each as 10 pieds 
by 1 pieds 6 pouces. These are far too divergent to be 
correct and probably should have been noted as 1 
pied by 1 pied 6 pouces, specifying length before 
height. The same dimensions also applied to the 
second sketch, TheDeath of Cleopatra. 

3 Paris, Regnault-Delalande, 4-7 Nov. 1807. 

4 Regarding Raphael’s influence in France, see Paris 
1983-84, passim. 

46 Valenciennes (back to entry) 

1 Conisbee 2004, p. 14. 

2 For a list of paintings exhibited by Valenciennes 
at the Paris Salons, see Spoleto 1996, p. 157. 
Radisich 1982, p. 102, notes that as early as the 
1775 Salon, Jean-Pierre-Louis-Laurent Houel 
(1735-1813) had exhibited landscape sketches as 
paintings. 


47 Vien (back to entry) 

1 The painting was last exhibited at the Newhouse 
Galleries, New York, in 1990, for which see Lesur 
and Aaron 2009, p. 242, p. 82, ill. 

2 Gaehtgens and Lugand 1988, p. 111. 

48 Vincent (back to entry) 

1 Tours-Montpellier 2013-14, p. 129. 

2 As Epicureanism was condemned by the church, it 
is possible, if unlikely, as mentioned by Cuzin, 
that the artist would have shown his painting at a 
more liberal moment. 

3 The fact that the painting is framed in an old (18th 
century?) frame bearing an inscription identifying 
it as the 1791 Salon painting makes a weak, but 
nonetheless worthy, case for the identification of 
the painting as the 1791 Salon entry. 

49 Watteau (back to entry) 

1 The painting was engraved while in Jean de 
Jullienne’s collection and was included in his 
compilation of engraved works after Watteau. The 
engraver was Bernard Baron, and the engraving 
was announced for sale in the Mercure de France in 
June 1730. 

2 Known through copies. A version sometimes 
considered the original was last sold at Christie’s, 
London, 9 July 2015, lot 25. 

3 See Nordenfalk 1979 and Nordenfalk 1983. 

4 Rosenberg 1984a, pp. 76-77. 

5 Rosenberg and Prat 1996, vol. 2, no. 576. 

6 See Eidelberg 2017; Rosenberg and Prat 1996, 
vol 2, no. 68. 

7 Rosenberg and Prat 1996, vol. 2, no. 538. 

8 Marandel 2001, p. 287. 

9 For a list of the copies, see Eidelberg 2017. 


135 


Endnotes 



























Nineteenth 

Century 


136 


50 

Carpeaux 

138 

51 

Carries 

140 

52 

David 

142 

53 

Diaz de la Pena 

146 

54 

Dubufe 

148 

55 

Falguiere 

150 

56 

Falguiere 

152 

57 

Flandrin 

154 

58 

Gerard 

156 

59 

Gerome 

158 

60 

Lafitte 

160 

61 

Langlois 

162 

62 

Millet 

164 

63 

Monet 

166 

64 

Scheffer 

168 

65 

Troyon 

170 

66 

Vuillard 

172 

67 

Ziem 

174 


Notes to entries 50-67 

176 














50 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux 

(1827, Valenciennes-1875, Courbevoie) 


Seascape, mid-i9th century 

Oil on panel, 6 x 12I4 in. (15.2 x 31.1 cm) 

Signed lower right: J Bt Carpeaux 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.44 



138 


Nineteenth Century 


gnored for a long time, Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux’s 
paintings have recently been reappraised. The 1999- 
2000 exhibition Carpeauxpeintre, held in Valenciennes, 
the artist’s hometown, is the most complete attempt to date 
to evaluate the various facets of the sculptor’s paintings. On 
several occasions Carpeaux expressed his passion for paint¬ 
ing, which he considered organically bound to his sculpture, 
yet he exhibited only one painting during his lifetime, an 
overly finished, somber, and sentimental image inspired by 
the 1870 siege of Paris, representing an orphaned brother 
and sister (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tourcoing, inv. no. 894.3.1). 
His production was large enough to comprise a variety of 
subjects, ranging from portraits to religious and historical 
scenes, from copies after old masters to fantastical subjects 
executed with extreme freedom and for that reason 
occasionally hard to decipher. Carpeaux’s motivations for 
painting remain unknown. Mysteriously, he even executed 
paintings after his sculptures. However, he had little occasion 
to share any of his paintings with others, except for his 
portraits, which are often dated and dedicated to the sitters. 

With the exception of paintings for which circumstan¬ 
tial evidence exists (for example, his period of study at the 
French Academy in Rome, signed portraits, Second Empire 


and Commune subjects), Carpeaux’s pictures cannot be 
dated with accuracy. Such is the case for this Seascape, which 
may, however, relate to a small-size painting. Shipwreck in 
Dieppe’s Harbor, of 1873, at the Musee du Petit Palais, Paris 
(inv. no. PPP 3586). If it is tempting to attribute Carpeaux’s 
love for painting to the shimmering and, indeed, painterly, 
surface of some of his sculptures, the opposite is not 
necessarily true. Painting the sea, the least possible 
sculptural subject, Carpeaux abandons all attempt at giving 
substance to his depiction. Even though the paint is not 
thinly applied, the composition is marked by an extraordi¬ 
nary fluidity that is the opposite of sculpture. 

Because of their freedom of execution, Carpeaux’s 
paintings have occasionally been linked to Impressionism, 
which is both anachronistic and foreign to the artist’s 
intention, as their appearance is owing only to the artist’s 
lack of need to conform to any established tradition or 
technique. Such liberty may have been the privilege of 
sculptors when they functioned as painters. It can also be 
seen, for instance, in the paintings, and, notably, the oil 
sketches of Jean-Alexandre-Joseph Falguiere (1831-1900), an 
early friend of Carpeaux in Rome and in later life a more 
academic artist than Carpeaux ever was. jpm 



139 


















51 


Jean-Joseph Carries 

(1855, Lyon-1894, Paris) 


Provenance 


Portrait ofLoyse Labbe, 

between 1888 and 1894 
Enameled stoneware with a matte glaze, 
toned from chamois brown to shaded 
white, 23 x 25 x 13 in. (58.4 x 63.5 x 33 cm) 
Signed lower right edge: Carries 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
in honor of Mary L. Levkoff 
M.2009.7 



140 


Nineteenth Century 


F rench poetess Loyse Labbe (ca. 1526-ca. 1565) is a 
legendary figure in French literature. Reality and 
fiction are both part of her reputation. The poems 
published under her name rank among the finest written 
during the French Renaissance even though, in spite of 
ample historical evidence, their authorship has been 
contested. On the other hand, she has also been hailed as a 
feminist: if John Calvin reviled her for having supposedly 
dressed as a man to follow her lover into the army, the 
reformer’s attack seems to have been based on fantasy rather 
than facts. Instead, Labbe appears to have preferred the 
company of fellow poets, some of whom, such as Olivier de 
Magny, may have enjoyed a romantic relationship with the 
poetess. Labbe was one of the first women to preside over a 
literary circle of kindred spirits. She spent her life in her 
hometown of Lyon, accepted an arranged marriage to satisfy 
the economic ambitions of her family (makers of rope, or 
corde, in French, she was nicknamed La belle Cordiere ), and 
became a widow but never abandoned her literary ambitions. 1 

Her work was rediscovered by the Romantic genera¬ 
tion, who considered her a precursor of its movement: it 
was also then that the facts of her life became blurred and 
that she acquired her reputation as a free spirit. In bourgeois 
nineteenth-century Lyon, she was celebrated as embodying 
the spirit of the city, its culture, tradition, and independence. 

A Lyonnais himself, Jean-Joseph Carries was well aware 
of the legendary aspect of his subject. Yet with typical 
originality, his image of Labbe avoids any historicism or 
contemporary interest in the revival of figures from 
medieval or Renaissance history. The only known portrait of 
the poetess is a 1555 engraving by Pierre Woeiriot (1532- 
i 599 )> with which Carries must have been familiar, as it was 
reprinted by Henri Dubouchet (1833-1909) and widely 
distributed in the second half of the nineteenth century. 
Carries’s sculpture is, however, a work of pure imagination: 
as in some other bust portraits, 2 the sculptor favored an 
almost triangular composition, dominated by the eccentric 


headgear, which appears folkloric albeit without specific 
origin. 3 Accurately historical, or even just proper, dress 
would have required a strictly buttoned-up outfit instead of 
the fantastical layered costume devised by Carries. 

Typically, Carries executed his models in three 
materials, bronze, patinated plaster, and stoneware. Such is 
the case for Loyse Labbe, a bust that was first exhibited in 
bronze in 1887. 4 Shortly after the success of his exhibition. 
Carries moved to Saint-Amand-en-Puisaye, a village in 
Burgundy that was—and still is—famous for the quality of 
its clay. Until Carries settled there, the local production of 
enamel stoneware had been largely limited to pottery for 
daily use. Carries moved into the local Chateau de 
Montriveau, where he was joined by a community of artists, 
all interested in experimenting with the local clay. His 
major patron then was the American Winnaretta Singer, at 
the time Princesse de Scey-Montbeliard (and later Polignac), 
who had commissioned him to provide a sculptural 
environment to enshrine Wagner’s manuscript of Parsifal, 
one of her prized possessions. It was, however, left incom¬ 
plete at the time of the artist’s premature death in 1894. 5 

It was also at Saint-Amand that Carries executed this 
stoneware version ofLoyse Labbe. 6 Particularly remarkable 
for the subtlety of its coloring, the delicate contrast of matte 
and shinier surfaces, the bust exemplifies Carries’s master¬ 
ing of complex techniques which justify his assertion that 
his stoneware sculptures were, in fact, unique. His contem¬ 
poraries marveled at his achievements, crowned by an 
exhibition at the Champ-de-Mars in 1892, which made him 
one of the most admired sculptors of his generation. His 
death at the age of thirty-nine was lamented as a great loss 
for French sculpture and prompted several publications, 
including the first complete catalogue of the artist. 7 
Although Carries was never forgotten, the importance of his 
work was only fully recognized in the later part of the 
twentieth century, jpm 


141 












52 

Jacques-Louis David 

(1748, Paris-1825, Brussels) 

Portrait of Jean-Pierre Delahaye, 1815 

Oil on panel, 24 x 19 14 in. (61 x 49 cm) 
Signed and dated lower left: L. DAVID / 1815 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2006.63 

Provenance 




References 




Technical report 






142 


Nineteenth Century 


R ecorded in the literature but never seen publicly 
before its sale at auction and its subsequent 
acquisition by the Los Angeles County Museum of 
Art, the portrait of Jean-Pierre Delahaye was executed 
during a tumultuous moment in Jacques-Louis David’s life. 
Known for the role he had taken during the French 
Revolution—notably as deputy of Paris to the Convention, 
where he voted for the execution of Louis XVI—as well as 
for his unconditional support of Napoleon, David found his 
prominent position being challenged during the 
Restoration of the Bourbon king Louis XVIII, after 
Napoleon’s defeat in 1814. In early 1815 hope and honors 
came back with Napoleon’s escape from exile on the island 
of Elba and his brief attempt to seize power again. 

Napoleon arrived in Paris on 20 March 1815. Six days later 
David was reinstated in his position of Premier Peintre and a 
month later was awarded the rank of Commandant in the 
Legion of Honor. On 18 June 1815 Napoleon was definitively 
defeated by a European coalition at Waterloo, a week after 
which David applied for a passport. A target again of the 
restored king, David was reduced to only one possibility for 
remaining in Paris, and that was to ask for a royal pardon, 
which he refused to do. He then left for Besancon and 
traveled to Switzerland and Savoy (then part of the 
Kingdom ofPiedmont-Sardinia). In late August he obtained 
a visa to return to Paris. Reunited with his family, David 
resumed his activities, reopening his studio with a dwin¬ 
dling number of students. On 16 January 1816 Louis XVIII 
issued an ordinance banishing all regicides who had 
pledged allegiance to Napoleon during his return the 
preceding year. By 27 January 1816 David and his wife had 
settled in Brussels, where he died in 1824. 

Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that 
there are no other works by David dated 1815 (with the 
exception of an album of sketches done during his travels 
around Besancon). 1 Evidence suggests that Delahaye’s is the 
last portrait or even the last painting David executed in 
Paris. The circumstances of its execution are not known: a 
family tradition affirms that the portrait was a gift from the 


artist. It may at least have been an exchange for services 
rendered by Delahaye. Delahaye was a lawyer who counted 
among his clients some of the prominent members of the 
ancien regime aristocracy (including the comte de Seze, 
who had been Louis XVI’s public defender) and, perhaps 
surprisingly, in that company, David himself. In that age, 
however, compromises and changing allegiances were not 
only common but necessary to survive. Delahaye himself, 
who seems to have been politically conservative, and who 
probably welcomed the restoration of the Bourbon kings, 
had seen his career propelled by his own acceptance of 
reforms made to the legal system by the Revolutionary 
government. David reported the confidence he had in 
Delahaye to his son, Jean-Louis, who succeeded in his 
father’s practice, and who managed David’s afFairs in France 
until the artist’s death, including the sale and transfer to 
the French government of major works, among which were 
his Intervention of the Sabine Women (1799; Musee du Louvre, 
Paris, inv. no. 3691) and Leonidas at Thermopylae (1814; Musee 
du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 26080), left in David’s Parisian 
studio when he moved to Brussels. 

Most of David’s portraits were commissioned by their 
sitters. Although David subscribed to the traditional 
academic hierarchy of genres, ranking portraiture below 
history painting, he never neglected the former. Not only 
did portrait commissions provide the artist with a solid 
income (his prices were considered almost extravagant but 
were justified in the artist’s mind by the demand they 
elicited), but they also gave the artist an opportunity to 
reassess the art of the portrait itself. 2 There is no record of a 
commission on the part of Delahaye for his portrait, a rare 
instance in David’s oeuvre shared only with the Portrait of 
Catherine Tallard (1795; Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. RF 
1740), which was a gift of the artist to the sitter, a young 
servant. There are also significant differences between the 
two portraits. While the one of Catherine Tallard is on 
canvas and was rapidly painted, with its background left 
unfinished (as in other portraits by David), the Delahaye 
portrait is on a smooth panel that enhances its finish. 


143 












Philippe Bordes has noted that several of David’s portraits 
are executed on panel. 3 This practice—evidenced in David’s 
paintings after 1795—can be viewed as a return to the 
manner and technique of Renaissance painters (which David 
may have seen in ever greater numbers after the display in 
Paris of paintings looted by the Napoleonic armies in Italy). 
At the same time, panel paintings had never lost their 
currency in eighteenth-century France, particularly in the 
works of the genre painters influenced by Dutch artists. 
Finally, Bordes observed that David may also have reacted to 
the production of the greatest French portrait painter, 
Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun, whom he admired to the point of 
having tried to reestablish contact with her subsequent to 
her return to France after the Revolution. 4 

Cooper Penrose’s portrait (fig. 9) by David is perhaps 
the closest to Delahaye’s. Both represent men at the end of 
their lives: Penrose died thirteen years after the completion 
of his portrait; Delahaye, three. Both wear very similar 
outfits, simple and more functional than elegant, of the 
modern and colorless kind that was to become the norm for 
men’s fashion throughout the nineteenth century. From 
what can be gathered about their lives, Penrose would be 


the more interesting of the two: an Irish Quaker landowner 
and collector, he went to Paris, among other reasons, to 
meet David and commission his portrait. He was the 
traditional grand tourist, enamored of antiquity—a quality 
that must have appealed to David. Delahaye instead does 
not seem to have had these lofty interests, and David must 
have responded to another aspect of human nature. Like 
him, Delahaye was a survivor. Whatever his opinions, he 
had lived through the difficult period of the French 
Revolution and the Empire, not by being as engaged as 
David in the politics of the moment, but by navigating the 
fluctuations of daily politics. In doing so, he had established 
himself and his family as part of this new post-Revolutionary 
bourgeoisie that was to dominate the new century. 
Somehow, David captured these qualities in his sitter: his 
lack of formal elegance, his wig almost parodic of those 
worn by eighteenth-century aristocrats but still powdered 
enough to leave specks on his shoulder, and the smile of the 
man who had heard the confidences of his clients, the most 
famous of them being the greatest painter of the moment, 
considered by others an unrepentant regicide. JPM 


144 


Nineteenth Century 



Fig. 9 


F ig. 9 Jacques-Louis David, Portrait of Cooper Penrose, 
1802. Oil on canvas, 51% x 38 % in. (130.5 x 97.5 cm). 
Putnam Foundation, Timken Museum of Art 
(inv. no. 1953:001) 


145 


David, Portrait ofJean-Pierre Delahaye 




Narcisse-Virgilio Diaz 

Figures in Oriental Costumes, ca. 1845 

33 

de la Pena 

Oil on panel, 18% x 12 in. (47.6 x 27.9 cm) 


(1807, Bordeaux-1876, Menton) 


Exhibitions 





The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.39 


146 


Nineteenth Century 


B etter appreciated as a painter of landscapes, a genre 
he adopted after his encounter with Theodore 
Rousseau (1812-1867) in 1836, Diaz de la Pena was 
also a prolific figure painter, even though his figure 
paint-ings were criticized for their lack of strong draftsman¬ 
ship by Charles Baudelaire in his review of the 1845 Salon. 
Baudelaire’s opinion could indeed be confirmed by 
numerous canvases, where amorphous figures fail to give 
the composition a solid structure. In this respect, this 
sketchily executed painting (for it cannot be considered 
properly a study for a larger composition) proves the 
opposite. Baudelaire, defending the artist’s use of colors, 
defined it as “kaleidoscopic.” In this particular and unique 
painting, arguably one of the artist’s greatest achievements 
as a figure painter, the distribution of light and dark areas 
and the differentiation of textures, ranging from thick and 
bold impasto to thin washes, all contribute to make the 
surface vibrate with life and energy. 

In spite of having exhibited Orientalist subjects at the 
1845,1846, and 1847 Salons and having returned to such 
costume pieces in the 1860s, 1 Diaz cannot be considered an 
Orientalist painter. His paintings reveal little interest in 
such subjects, which reflected the ethnographic interest 
preoccupying artists more vested in the genre, jpm 


147 



















54 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Louis Edouard Dubufe 

(1820, Paris-1883, Versailles) 


Portrait of the Princess Brancaccio, nee 
Mary Elizabeth Hickson-Field, ca. 1870 
Oil on canvas, 1614 x 1114 in. 

(41.9 x 29.2 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.41 



148 


Nineteenth Century 


O f modest beauty but immense wealth, the 
Philadelphia-born Elizabeth Hickson-Field 
(1846-1907) married Prince Salvatore Brancaccio 
(1842-1924), the scion of an ancient, noble Neapolitan 
family, on 3 March 1870 in Paris. In Rome, where they lived 
in one of the last grandiose palaces erected in the city, and in 
their countiy residence, the Castello di San Gregorio di 
Sassola, they were active members of the newly established 
court of the reigning Savoy family. 

Louis Edouard Dubufe was the son of the painter 
Edouard Marie Dubufe. After an unsuccessful start as a 
history painter, he turned entirely to portrait painting and 
became one of the most sought-after portraitists of the 
Second Empire. Famous actors, writers, as well as members 
of aristocratic society, sat for him. It was therefore natural 
for the rich Philadelphian to have had her portrait done by 
this much-admired society artist. The circumstances 
surrounding the commission are not known, but the 
portrait was probably executed in Paris at the time of her 
wedding to Prince Brancaccio. Its composition alludes to 


the tradition of grand portraiture: the sitter stands in front 
of a billowing drapery, in the manner of Anthony van Dyck, 
which Dubufe had studied during the three years (1848-51) 
he spent in England. In spite of its formality, an engaging 
immediacy emanates from the portrait. Even though the 
artist was poorly considered by nonacademic artists and 
became a target for Emile Zola, he could not escape the 
attention of the younger generation of painters. As noted by 
Joanna Barnes, “In the freeness of its handling and the 
elegance of the pose, this sketch may be compared with a 
finished composition by Claude Monet of approximately 
the same date, Madame Louis Joachim Gaudibert (1868) Paris, 
Musee d’Orsay.” 1 

Active in politics and social causes, the Brancaccios 
were not major patrons of the arts. The family painter was 
the academic Francesco Gai (1835-1917), who undertook the 
decoration of their residences, as well as executed a famous 
and spectacular portrait of the sitter and her children, now 
in the Museo di Roma (inv. no. MR18430). jpm 


149 
















55 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Jean-Alexandre-Joseph 

Falguiere 

(1831, Toulouse-1900, Paris) 


Man Smoking a Pipe, ca. 1875 The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Oil on canvas, 21 x 17% in. (55.9 x 45-t cm) Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.46 



150 


Nineteenth Century 


K nown primarily for his work in sculpture, Jean- 
Alexandre-Joseph Falguiere brought the same 
directness of approach and realism to his paintings. 
The result, as seen in LACMA’s sketch Man Smoking a Pipe, is 
striking. With his right shoulder only partially visible and 
his head cocked to one side as if listening intently, the 
man—seen only from the chest up—appears to occupy the 
viewer’s space. The painting is a preparatory sketch for The 
Wrestlers (Musee d’Orsay, Paris, inv. no. RF 199519), a large 
painting on canvas (7 ft. 10 in. x 6 ft. 3 in. [2.4 x 1.9 m]) for 
which Falguiere won a second-class medal at the Salon of 
1875. The artist had been exhibiting sculptures at Paris 
Salons since 1857, but The Wrestlers was only the second 
painting he submitted. 

The contemporary scene of two men wrestling in an 
arena, surrounded by male spectators, marked the artist’s 
turn toward realism. Although Falguiere would be credited 
with introducing realism to French sculpture, a contempo¬ 
rary critic noted that the vigorous, powerful wrestlers in the 
painting, which he compared with those depicted by 
Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), were diametrically opposed to 
the idealized, ascetic, and slender forms of Falguiere’s 
earlier sculptures, such as The Victor at the Cock Fight (1864; 
Musee d’Orsay, Paris, inv. no. RF 144, LUX 44). 1 

An article in the Gazette des beaux-arts about the 1875 
Salon referred to The Wrestlers as a large sketch, noting that 
whereas some areas were elaborated, others were freely 
painted. As a result, the author pointed out that the 
painting retained its initial verve. 2 Indeed, in The Wrestlers 
there is a striking contrast between the sculptural quality 
and rugged detail of the two nearly nude wrestlers cast in 
strong light in the foreground and the impressionistic 
description of the gallery of men in topcoats observing from 
behind bright red barriers. Only four of the men in the 
gallery were individualized by the artist. Contemporary 
critics identified three of them as the sculptors Jules Isidore 
Lafrance (1841-1881) at the far left, Jean-Paul Aube (1837- 
1916) in the center, and Eugene Delaplanche (1836-1891) at 
the right. 3 

The fourth individualized man smokes a pipe in the 
second row at the right. He is identical to the man in 
LACMA’s sketch, except the man in The Wrestlers is wearing a 
hat pushed back from his face. Marie-Pierre Sale notes that 


he is not mentioned by any of the critics. Although one 
author has suggested that the sketch may be a self-portrait, 4 
Sale suggests that he is the painter, printmaker, and poet 
Marcellin Desboutin (1823-1902). 5 Desboutin studied in 
Paris with Louis-Jules Etex (1810-1889) and later with the 
painter Thomas Couture (1815-1879). A bohemian, he was 
depicted consistently in self-portraits and in works by other 
artists—including Edgar Degas in The Absinthe Drinkers 
(1876; Musee d’Orsay, Paris, inv. no. RF 1984)—as bearded, 
wearing a brimmed hat pushed back, and smoking a pipe. 

The free handling, directness of observation, and 
casual, seemingly unposed quality of the LACMA sketch 
suggest it was painted from life. A photograph by an 
anonymous photographer reveals that Falguiere posed the 
two wrestlers and his friends as spectators. 6 The location, as 
Sale suggests, was probably the arena on the rue le Peletier 
in Paris. 7 In the photograph, the figure of the man smoking 
a pipe is blurred, indicating that he moved as the photo¬ 
graph was taken. It is thus probable that Falguiere painted 
the LACMA sketch from life to correct the preparatory 
photograph. 

Falguiere’s representation of a contemporary everyday 
scene rather than a heroic subject follows in the tradition 
of Honore Daumier (1808-1879) and Gustave Courbet. Both 
had used wrestlers as subjects: Daumier, in a painting of 
a single wrestler leaving the arena during a match (ca. 1852- 
53; Ordrupgaardsamlingen, Ordrupgaard, Copenhagen), 
and Courbet, in a painting of two wrestlers in a landscape 
with a distant audience (1853; Szepmuveszeti Muzeum, 
Budapest, inv. no. 502. B). Instead of free-form wrestling, 
popular in the United States and depicted in Thomas 
Eakins’s painting The Wrestlers (LACMA, inv. no. M.2007.1), 
these French artists represent so-called Greco-Roman 
wrestling. In this version of the sport, amateur wrestlers 
begin in a standing position and attempt either to throw 
their opponent to the mat or to use holds to drop him. All 
holds had to be applied above the waist, and using the legs 
was prohibited. This form of show wrestling, known as la 
luttes it mainsplatte (open-handed wrestling), was the most 
popular spectator sport in Europe during the late nine¬ 
teenth century and offered artists an opportunity to study 
the male nude in motion. AW 


151 














56 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Jean-Alexandre-Joseph 

Falguiere 

(1831, Toulouse-1900, Paris) 


Figures Seated around a Lamp, n.d. 

Oil on canvas, 9 14 x 13 in. (23.5 x 33 cm) 
Signed lower right: A.Fg 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.45 



152 


Nineteenth Century 


A dmired for his sculptures, Alexandre Falguiere was 
nonetheless a respected painter, appreciated by his 
fellow artists. His best-known painting, now at the 
Musee d’Orsay, is The Wrestlers, shown at the 1875 Salon, for 
which the museum owns a study (see cat. 55). This rapidly 
executed oil sketch represents another aspect of Falguiere’s 
practice as a painter. Even though it is signed, it was not 
intended as a study for a larger painting, nor was it meant 
to be exhibited, let alone to be sold; it was instead executed 
for the artist’s own enjoyment, perhaps to keep alive the 
memory of a pleasurable moment. The mood evoked in this 
sketch prefigures the later intim iste scenes of Edouard 
Vuillard, but the technique is different: the solid composi¬ 
tion is made of broad brushstrokes, applied with a 
directness that reminds one of a sculptor’s marks on clay. 
Falguiere, whose sculptures are fairly traditional (even 
though their often-Republican subjects give them an 
appearance of modernity), admired the nonconformist 
Gustave Courbet. This small painting is typical of the oil 
sketches that Falguiere created as a diversion from making 
sculptures and without any pretense to greatness or 
consideration for the conventions and strictures of the 
Academic tradition, jpm 


153 
















57 

Hippolyte-Jean Flandrin 

(1809, Lyon-1864, Rome) 

The Sacrifice of Isaac, i860 

Oil on board, 18 J 4 x 23 Vi in. (47 x 59.7 cm) 
Signed and dated lower left: Flandrin i860 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.40 

Provenance 




Exhibitions 




References 






154 


Nineteenth Century 


I n the Old Testament, the true test of faith and God’s 
authority is told through the story of Abraham, who is 
commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac 
(Genesis 22:1-19). Hippolyte-Jean Flandrin depicts Abraham 
high on a bleak mountaintop as he prepares to obey God. 
Isaac, naked and shackled, kneels on a wood pyre. Abraham 
has his left hand on his son’s head and a knife in his right 
hand poised to strike the fatal blow when, suddenly, the 
angel of God intervenes. Omitting extraneous details and 
relying on clearly defined forms and brilliant colors, 
Flandrin creates an intelligible composition that reflects the 
classical tradition conveyed to him by his teacher, Jean- 
Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867). The coloring and 
segmented narrative style also connect Flandrin’s work 
with the frescoes of the Renaissance painter Giotto 
(1267/75-1337). 

The Sacrifice of Isaac is one of eighteen oil sketches 
Flandrin made in preparation for the mural decoration of 
the nave of the church of Saint-Germain-des-Pres on the 
Left Bank of Paris. 1 It was the last of four commissions he 
received for the sanctuary of the church in 1842 and 
remained unfinished upon his death in 1864. His brother 
Paul later completed the work, assisted by some of 
Flandrin’s pupils. 

The architecture of the small medieval church, 
formerly attached to an abbey, dictated the format of the 
nave murals. There was neither an extensive surface on 
which to create a long procession of saints—as the artist 
had done at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Paris (1849-53)—nor 
large walls on which to execute single scenes. Faced with 
this challenge, Flandrin decided to treat each bay of the 
nave as a separate unit while creating a continuous mural to 


tell the story of Christ’s life and Passion in relationship to 
the Old Testament. Within each bay, defined by the form of 
the arch, Flandrin paired a scene from the Old Testament 
with the scene from the New Testament for which it was 
considered a prefiguration. Thus, in the fourth bay on the 
right (south) side of the nave facing the altar, he paired the 
Old Testament story of Abraham’s sacrifice with the New 
Testament story of God’s sacrifice of Christ. Together, they 
represent the tenets of faith and obedience. Similarly, in the 
adjacent bay, the story of Jonah and the whale is paired with 
that of the Resurrection of Christ. Above the narrative 
scenes, on either side of the windows, individual figures 
from the Old Testament stand in faux niches. The prophet 
Jeremiah and his disciple Baruch, for whom there are oil 
sketches in a private collection and in the Palais des Beaux- 
Arts de Lille, respectively, appear above The Sacrifice of Isaac. 

Flandrin prepared extensively for the commission. He 
may have worked out the iconography with the assistance 
of local clerics, although typology—the pairing of events in 
the New Testament with those prefiguring them in the Old 
Testament—was a practice originating in the Early 
Christian Church. In addition to the oil sketch, from which 
a finished drawing would have been made and scored for 
enlargement and transfer to the mural, Flandrin, who was 
academically trained, made numerous drawings of individ¬ 
ual figures. Twelve drawings have been recorded, including 
seven sold in two lots at Flandrin’s estate sale on 15-17 May 
1865. 2 Today, the location of only two drawings is known, 
including a black chalk drawing of Abraham, now in the 
Musee des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (inv. no. 1.173.8, gift in 1917 of 
Paul Hippolyte Flandrin, the artist’s son). 3 AW 


155 













58 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 


Baron Francois-Pascal- 
Simon Gerard 

(1770, Rome-1837, Paris) 


The 10th of August, 1792, ca. 1795-99 
Oil with graphite on canvas, 42 x 56% in. 
(106.7 x 144-t cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.36 



156 


Nineteenth Century 


B aron Frangois-Pascal-Simon Gerard’s large, unfin¬ 
ished sketch The 10th of August, 1792 depicts one of the 
most violent and explosive events of the French 
Revolution: the moment the angry crowd, having stormed 
the Tuileries Palace in Paris, entered the National Assembly 
and demanded the suspension of Louis XVI’s reign. 1 On 
that day the fate of the monarchy was sealed. “From the 
beginning of the day it was apparent that blood would flow 
more freely than at any time since the beginning of the 
Revolution.” 2 

Exasperated by a combination of disastrous economic 
events and fear of a foreign invasion that would support the 
monarchy, the French populace had grown increasingly 
frustrated. Delegates from the provinces, who had gone to 
Paris for the celebration of the Federation on 14 July, 
declared they would not leave until the monarchy had been 
abolished. When the people stormed the Tuileries, where 
the royal family resided, they met violent resistance from 
both the National Guard and the Swiss Guard, the king’s 
personal security force. More than fifteen hundred civilians 
were massacred and at least as many injured before the 
guards themselves were killed by the mob. Fleeing the palace, 
the royal family sought refuge at the National Assembly. 
There, the king was forced to listen to the pronouncement 
of his deposition. On 21 January 1793 Louis XVI went to 
the guillotine. 

In April of the following year, the Committee of 
Public Safety announced a competition, known as the 
Concours de l’An II, and invited artists to submit works that 
“depict simply and directly any of the most glorious events 
of the Revolution.” 3 One hundred forty artists responded 
with entries varying from traditional allegories to illustra¬ 
tions of the virtuous deeds of select individuals. Gerard’s 
submission, Lepeuplefran^ais demandant la destitution du tyran 
d lajournee du 10 aout (Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 26713), 
a finished pen-and-ink drawing, was one of the most 
politicized statements and one of the few that dealt with a 
popular event. In selecting his subject, Gerard was undoubt¬ 
edly influenced by the example of his teacher, Jacques-Louis 
David (1748-1825), whose famous Tennis Court Oath, of 1790 
(Chateaux de Versailles et de Trianon) had broken precedent 
by representing a contemporary event rather than an 
ancient one. 

Gerard received first prize of 30,000 francs, a studio 
at the Louvre, and a commission to complete his project on 
a life-size scale. In preparation for this commission, he 


executed individual figure studies, including the figure of 
the man seated in the lower right corner (The Morgan 
Library & Museum, New York, inv. no. 2001.36), and two 
pencil studies (private collection, London), 4 as well as two 
oil sketches, one at the Musee de la Revolution Francaise, 
Chateau de Vizille (inv. no. 1999-23), and the other, the 
sketch at LACMA. 5 Patrice Marandel has convincingly 
argued that the Vizille sketch is contemporary with the 
Louvre drawing. 6 Broadly painted with a palette of primary 
colors and strong chiaroscuro efFects that dramatically 
connect the protesters at left of center with the imprisoned 
monarch at right, the Vizille sketch only generally defines 
the individual figures and space. 

In contrast to the Vizille sketch, LACMA’s mono¬ 
chrome sketch, executed in graphite and oil, carefully 
replicates on a larger scale the composition and detail of 
Gerard’s finished drawing at the Louvre. The graphite grid 
(approximately two centimeters square each) applied to the 
painting suggests that the artist had used it to transfer the 
design from the original drawing to the canvas. He outlined 
crisply in oil the major figures and used washes of brown 
paint to render relationships in dark and light. The grid 
also would have facilitated the transfer of the design to the 
large-scale painting. 

The principal difference between the LACMA sketch 
and the pen-and-ink drawing at the Louvre is the group of 
figures seen at the extreme left. Here, Gerard used loose, 
sketchy paint over the graphite figures copied from the 
Louvre drawing to introduce a new, fallen figure being 
brought vengefully to the attention of the president of the 
National Assembly. The king and queen, seen in the cage of 
the court recorder, look away. This treatment indicates a 
barely formulated idea on the part of the artist and may 
suggest his frustration with the composition. Work on the 
full-scale painting, now lost, was eventually abandoned by 
the Minister of the Interior; however, this appears to have 
been done for financial rather than political reasons. 7 

Despite its debt to David’s work and its heroic spirit, 
Gerard’s sketch differs greatly from David’s stark statement. 
In being more anecdotal and more accurate in its telling of a 
story, The 10th of August, 1792 prefigures the kind of propa¬ 
gandists history paintings that Gerard, Baron Antoine-Jean 
Gros (1771-1835), and other artists would soon create in 
praise of Napoleon. AW 


157 


































































Jean-Leon Gerome 

(1824, Vesoul-1904, Paris) 


Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Arab Woman in a Doorway, ca. 1870 
Oil on canvas, 13 14 x 10 14 in. 
(33.7x26 cm) 

Stamped lower left: ATELIERJ.L. GEROME 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.43 



158 


Nineteenth Century 


A s the main Orientalist painter of the late nineteenth 
century, Jean-Leon Gerome executed numerous 
genre scenes reflecting an imaginary vision of the 
Middle East fueled by erotic fantasies. These scenes were set 
among a profusion of details exactingly rendered. His large 
paintings were done in his studio, where, in contemporary 
fashion, objects from Syria, Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire 
were displayed and which served as props that the painter 
used in his compositions, regardless of their specific 
provenance. 

Gerome had traveled extensively in the Middle East 
from 1862 until 1874 and had visited Constantinople and 
Asia Minor in 1871 and 1875. The date of Arab Woman in a 
Doorway is not known, nor can it be ascertained if it was 
executed while he was traveling. Gerome painted at least 


one other version of the same subject, more loosely painted 
and slightly larger, which was on the international art 
market in 2016. The subject and composition appealed to 
Gerome, who, time and again, returned to the image of a 
woman in a doorway. In his 1986 monograph,Gerald 
Ackermann lists several paintings using that motif, ranging 
in date from the early 1870s to the late 1890s. 1 Joanna Barnes 
assigns a date in the 1870s to the present sketch. 2 

At the time of Gerome’s death, the painting was in the 
artist’s studio and was stamped with the atelier’s stamp. 
There was no sale of the contents of the artist’s studio, which 
instead were divided among various dealers (Boussod, 
Goupil & Co. and Valadon & Cie, in Paris, and Knoedler’s in 
New York), jpm 


159 






































60 

Louis Lafitte 

Brutus Listening to the Ambassadors 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

(1770-1828, Paris) 

of the Tarquins( 7 ), ca. 1790 

Oil on canvas, 19 x 27J4 in. 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.34 


Provenance 

Exhibitions 


(48.9 x 69.9 cm) 




i6o 


Nineteenth Century 


T he attribution of this sketch to Guillaume Lethiere, 
prevalent after its acquisition by Andrew 
Ciechanowiecki, was challenged by Philippe Bordes, 
who instead proposed Louis Lafitte as its author. 1 A pupil of 
Jean-Baptiste Regnault, Lafitte won the Rome Prize in 1791 
with a painting representing Regulus’s return to Carthage. 
Lafitte exhibited during the Revolution, at the Salons of 
1791,1795, and 1798. Most of his subsequent career was 
spent providing designs for engravings, ephemeral 
monuments, and decorative ensembles conceived in 
collaboration with such architects as Charles Percier, at 
Malmaison, for instance. His few known paintings are in 
French museums. Lafitte worked for Napoleon, as well as 
for Louis XVIII and Charles X. 

Given Lafitte’s limited production, it is difficult to 
compare this work with other paintings by him. It is, 
however, likely that the present sketch belongs to the early 
years of the artist and could probably have been executed in 
Italy, where Lafitte remained until 1796. 


The subject has been identified by Robert Herbert as 
Brutus listening to the ambassadors of the Tarquins, 
illustrating the episode in which emissaries of the deposed 
kings pled for the return of their royal possessions. 2 Such a 
narrative would seem to belong to the post-Revolutionary 
period if it had not been, in fact, the opening scene of 
Voltaire’s play Bratus, first performed in 1730, without 
success, but revived in Paris in 1790 to a more appreciative 
audience. 3 

Rigorously Neoclassical and politically charged, 
Lafitte’s painting is typical of a genre adopted by many 
painters who exhibited at the Salons during the Revolution, 
such as Jacques Augustin Pajou (1766-1828) or Jean-Jacques 
Le Barbier (1738-1826) among others. 4 It is therefore 
possible to date the painting to about 1790. jpm 


161 

































61 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 


Jerome-Martin Langlois 

(1779-1838, Paris) 


The Marriage of the Virgin, 1833 
Oil on paper mounted on canvas, 
13 }4 x 18 }4 in. (33.7 x 46.4 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.37 



162 


Nineteenth Century 


J erome-Martin Langlois’s The Marriage of the Virgin is the 
modello, or preparatory study, for one of eight paintings 
depicting the life of the Virgin Mary commissioned 
from eight leading artists of the July Monarchy for the 
decoration of the nave of the church of Notre-Dame-de- 
Lorette, Paris. Located at the end of the rue Lafitte, near 
Montmartre, the church, completed in 1836, was designed 
by Hippolyte Lebas (1782-1867) in the conservative style of 
an Early Christian basilica with a Corinthian portico. The 
architecture of the church dictated the arrangement of the 
eight paintings, which line the upper walls of the nave. Two 
large horizontal paintings, flanked and separated by 
windows, occupy each side of the nave; vertical composi¬ 
tions are placed in the comers. Langlois’s finished painting 
is the second horizontal composition on the right. 

In addition to Langlois, the commission included the 
following artists and works: Raymond-Auguste Monvoisin, 
The Birth of theVirgin, 1833; Auguste-Jean-Baptiste Vinchon, 
The Presentation of theVirgin, 1833; Frangois Dubois, The 
Annunciation, 1833; Jean-Perrin Granger, The Adoration of the 
Magi, 1835; Nicolas-Auguste Hesse, The Adoration of the 
Shepherds, 1835; Aimable-Paul Coutan, TheVisitation, 1833; 
and Frangois-Louis de Juinne, The Assumption, 1835. The 
conservative style of the architecture and the paintings, 
which reflect the Neoclassical tradition, contrasts sharply 
with the elaborate ceiling and the stucco, marble, and gilt 
decoration of the interior. 

Langlois, who also painted The Vow and Ecstasy ofSaint 
Theresa for this church, referred to popular the Renaissance 
and contemporary prototypes for The Marriage of the Virgin. 
The subject, best known through altarpieces by Renaissance 
painters Perugino and Raphael, had been treated ten years 
earlier by Jean-Baptiste Wicar (1762-1834). The French 
Neoclassical painter had been commissioned to make a 
replacement for Perugino’s altarpiece for the cathedral of 
Perugia, which had been removed by French troops in 1797 
and taken to Caen, France. Wicar looked to both Pemgino 
and Raphael for inspiration but, unlike the two Italian 
painters, chose to represent the event as taking place 
indoors, with the figures kneeling. 

Like Wicar, Langlois also places the setting of the 
Marriage of the Virgin indoors, inside a temple. He depicts 
the event at the top of the steps in front of a baldacchino, 
flanked by twisted columns associated by tradition with the 
Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem and employed by Gian 
Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) for the Baldacchino of the 
High Altar (1633) of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. 

Langlois’s idea for the setting appears to derive from 
Raphael’s design for the predella of the Madonna of Monteluce 
(1523; Pinacoteca, Vatican, inv. no. 40359), completed after 
his death by Giulio Romano (ca. 1499-1546) and Giovan 
Francesco Penni (ca. 1496-after 1528) and known also by an 
engraving by Sanuto da Raffaello. Although similar in many 
aspects to Wicar’s vertical altarpiece, Langlois’s horizontal 
painting retains the hieratical arrangement of the three 


central figures—often used in Renaissance compositions— 
rather than Wicar’s kneeling figures, which Wicar in turn 
adopted from Marriage from Nicolas Poussin’s second series 
of the Seven Sacraments (Duke of Rutland, Belvoir Castle, 
Grantham, Leicestershire, on loan to the Fitzwilliam 
Museum, Cambridge). 1 

The use of clear primary colors, dramatic lighting, and 
the compositionally balanced central group made Langlois’s 
painting legible when viewed from below. The sense of calm 
that imbues the three central figures is contrasted by the 
emotional responses of the observers around them. At the 
left, one sees the rapt attention of the figures cast in the 
light; a woman wrings her hands beseechingly. By compari¬ 
son, the mood is more subdued at the right, where the 
figures are more restrained. 

LACMA’s sketch is one of three preparatory works that 
are known for the mural in the church of Notre-Dame-de- 
Lorette; the others, which are closely related in size and 
composition to the LACMA sketch, are a line drawing 
(private collection, Paris) and an oil sketch (Musee 
Carnavalet, Paris, inv. no. P2811). 2 The Carnavalet oil sketch 
was probably the earliest of the three: it appears more 
loosely painted and represents the marriage at the top of 
only two steps within a light-filled apse defined by pilas¬ 
ters. 3 The line drawing, which sets the scene at the summit 
of three steps in front of a baldacchino with four twisted 
columns and a curtain, is closest to the LACMA sketch and 
to the final composition. The character of the drawing— 
limited to outlines and the omission of the heads of the 
figures standing at the far right—suggests that it represents 
a transfer drawing made from LACMA’s sketch. The 
infrared reflectogram taken of LACMA’s painting indicates 
that Langlois began with a one-point perspective drawing 
that places the central three figures adopted from the 
Carnavalet sketch in a more central position one step higher 
within the composition. The four twisted columns, the red 
curtain, and the shadowy atmosphere that engulfs the 
surrounding figures both in the LACMA sketch and final 
painting focus attention on the holy couple and priest. 
LACMA’s sketch undoubtedly represents Langlois’s final 
solution for the mural for which it served as the model. The 
line drawing, which is squared, was probably used to 
enlarge the composition for transfer by grid to the mural. 

In addition to the three known compositional 
sketches, Langlois probably made numerous preparatory 
drawings for this important commission. Among these is 
a black chalk study for the head of the Virgin (private 
collection), which Langlois probably derived from the pop¬ 
ular examples of Sassoferrato (1609-1685). Another drawing 
by Langlois, in a French private collection, represents 
a vertical composition showing a priest bending toward two 
kneeling figures as seen from the side. It is possible that 
this drawing, as suggested by J. Patrice Marandel, may be an 
earlier concept intended for one of the vertical corner 
paintings for the church of Notre-Dame-de-Lorette. 4 AW 


163 

























62 


Jean-Francois Millet 

(1814, Gruchy-1875, Barbizon) 


Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


A Norman Milkmaid at Greville, 1871 
Oil on canvas mounted on paperboard, 
31 Vz x 21% in. (80 x 55.6 cm) 



Gift of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. 
M.81.259.4 


164 


Nineteenth Century 


G iven the tremendous political upheaval in France 
during Jean-Francois Millet’s active years as an 
artist, the paintings and drawings executed by him 
have inevitably been cast up against these dramatic events. 
Both his subject and style, which relied heavily on his 
exquisite strengths as a draftsman, have been positioned as 
reactions against or inclinations toward the shifting 
political ground of the middle of the nineteenth century in 
France. While it is hard not to draw a line between Millet’s 
insistence on the noble peasantry, the dedication to the 
rural landscape, and the balance between the classical and 
the real given the growing urban industrialization and the 
nationalist tendencies generated by the Franco-Prussian 
War, to do so also belies the fact that art, for Millet, was also 
a deeply personal affair. 

Having grown up in Normandy in the town of 
Greville, Millet was necessarily afforded a provincial artistic 
upbringing. Although he went to Paris to train for three 
years, in 1840 he returned to the bigger Norman port city of 
Cherbourg and primarily practiced portraiture. Most of this 
early output is conventional portrait work commissioned 
by the local bourgeoisie, but the paintings nevertheless 
indicate a kind of sincerity of portrayal, an embrace of thick 
brushwork typical of the Romantics and his contemporary 
Gustave Courbet, and a tonal sophistication that would 
come to characterize his mature work. These qualities 
defined his monumental depictions of peasants at work and 
were epitomized by his breakthrough painting. The Winnower 
(The National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG6447), exhibited 
at the Salon of 1848 to significant acclaim. While these 
fundamental attributes remain in A Norman Milkmaid at 
Greville, painted in 1871, as Millet revisits this figure 
throughout his career from the early 1840s through the year 
before his death in 1875/ the trajectory of his art and the 
meaning behind the subject change. 

The first example of Millet’s attention to the motif of 
the milkmaid is displayed in a watercolor created in his 
earliest years and is born of the eighteenth-century style in 
which he was then interested. 2 However, it was not long 
after this first use of the subject that the tone changes 
dramatically, away from a fanciful version to that of 
something with greater gravitas. In the late 1840s, while he 
was completing The Winnower and against the background 
of the revolution of 1848, Millet’s approach to the subject in 
drawings and in his first oil painting, completed about 
1849-50, reveals a shift. The female figure now commands 


the entirety of the canvas. Her solemnity and grandeur are 
reflected in the moderate tones, the unfussy paint handling, 
and the emphasis on her physicality. Her frontality is 
reinforced by her backlit figure, whereby the urn with 
which she carries her milk is literally made a part of her 
physical person. The dramatic lighting from behind, which 
casts her head in a halo, lends another layer of significance 
to the motif: her monumental importance as a worker of 
the land is equated with the divine. 3 

It is with this achievement of an elevated kind of 
realism—arguably more sensitive than Courbet’s—that 
Millet established his reputation. He worked alongside the 
Barbizon painters and was profoundly close to Theodore 
Rousseau, whose landscapes conveyed both naturalism and 
feeling. Millet’s positive critical reception by the avant- 
garde who followed him, so strong from Vincent van Gogh, 
who copied him, and Edgar Degas, who owned several of 
his drawings, speaks to his success as a draftsman, as well as 
his ability to elevate the humble rural worker. In this time 
of great change, it was the grounding force of naturalism in 
drawing that was the lodestone to which many artists and 
writers were attracted. 

The Ahmanson version of the milkmaid is arguably 
his most personal. During the Franco-Prussian War in 
1870-71, Millet left Barbizon, where he had lived since 1849, 
to escape the fighting in and around Paris. Amid the chaos 
of war, he retreated to Normandy for about a year and a half 
and visited the place of his youth. “It gives me a great and 
sad emotion to look like any stranger at the house where I 
was born and where my parents died.... I went over the 
fields that I once plowed and sowed. Where are those who 
worked with me? Where are those dear eyes that, with me, 
gazed over the stretch of the sea?” 4 It is under these 
circumstances that LACMA’s milkmaid was conceived. The 
drawing for the picture was made on his trip to Greville in 
August of that year and taken back to Barbizon to complete 
in oil at the end of the war in 1871. 5 This studio painting is 
infused with a powerful nostalgia, which has replaced the 
feathered sentimentality of the earlier versions. The central 
figure is monumental, to be sure, and positioned to fill the 
canvas with a viewpoint from below to emphasize her 
looming presence. And while the figure is also lit from 
behind as in the other versions of the same subject during 
his career, the tonal subtleties of the sunset suggest a 
melancholic, rather than sentimental, vision, ll 


165 













Claude Monet 

(1840, Paris-1926, Giverny) 


Provenance 
Exhibitions 
References 
Technical report 


View ofVetheuil, 1880 Gift ofHoward Ahmanson, Jr. 

Oil on canvas, 31% x 25 5 /s in. (81 x 65 cm) M.81.259.3 
Signed with estate stamp lower right: Claude Monet 



166 


Nineteenth Century 


C laude Monet’s move to the small village ofVetheuil 
marks a significant step, literally and perhaps even 
spiritually, along his artistic journey. Moving 
outward from Paris, first to the suburb of Argenteuil, next 
to the small village ofVetheuil, and finally to Giverny, 
Monet’s physical migration away from Paris is paralleled by 
artistic changes made by or reflected in the places in which 
he lived. After early encouragement from Eugene Boudin to 
paint outdoors, Monet began painting the city of Paris, as 
well as the suburban outskirts of the French capital in the 
mid-i86os, alongside his avant-garde colleagues Edouard 
Manet and Pierre-Auguste Renoir. He submitted paintings 
to the annual Salon but was soon frustrated by their 
Academic constructs; in 1873 he formed, together with 
Renoir, Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley, an independent 
group of painters. The following year they held the first of 
eight exhibitions of the group, and one of his pictures, 
entitled Impression: Sunrise, came to define an entire era of 
French avant-garde painting. Through the next three years, 
Monet continued to work in Argenteuil, depicting land¬ 
scapes, people, the changing countryside, and the elements 
of modernization (railroads, factories), and saw impressive 
professional and personal success. 

After the birth of his second son in 1878, Monet moved 
farther away from Paris to a quaint town nestled between 
two hills along the Seine. Vetheuil, quietly tucked away 
from the growing urbanism of the French capital, was a 
place where he experienced both the lowest point in his 
career as well as his first steps toward a permanent, trium¬ 
phal success. Situated in a valley between two hills, the 
topography of the town physically mirrors this professional 
nadir. The village is centered on a Romanesque church, 
which was the focal point of several of his landscapes 
painted during the five years he lived there, and much as 
had Paris and Argenteuil, Vetheuil began to define his 
direction in painting. It, however, was not a place of respite 
or success, as the artist had seen in the previous decade. 
Rather, the time was one of turmoil and transition, both 
familial and financial, with the death of his wife in 1879 and 
his near-complete financial ruin owing to a shifting market. 
Here, he shared a small house with his friends Ernest and 
Alice Hoschede (she would become his second wife) and the 
Hoschedes’ six children. These years were fraught and 
transformative. 

While Monet paints in Vethueil, people and industry 
fall away from his canvases nearly completely, and the artist 
begins to focus entirely on the quiet views of the village and 
its surrounding landscape. View of Vetheuil is an exemplary 
work from this time and place, which Monet directly 


describes in the very year this work was made as “my 
studio.” 1 The sky and sea are marked by broad sweeps of 
blues, whites, purples, and pinks, a contrast to the dappled 
brushwork of greens, browns, and blues in the foreground 
hill. The artist’s brushwork continues in the loosened 
manner that had been deployed in the earlier part of the 
decade. As he did in other landscapes of the time, Monet 
begins to play more seriously with the concept of depth, 
combining an almost severe sense of proximity with a view 
of the distance. This tension between near and far would be 
fully realized in his paintings of water lilies, begun in the 
1890s. In this painting the tension created between the 
insistent proximity of the foreground hill with the distant 
town and landscape—along with the complete removal of a 
middle ground—suggests the beginning interest in this 
manner of depicting the natural world. 

Whereas most of the qualities of this picture remain 
typical for Monet at the time, the verticality is unusual in 
his oeuvre overall. A watershed moment in French art had 
occurred, however, in 1878, at the Universal Exposition in 
Paris, where a display of Japanese art and, specifically, 
Japanese prints went on view. The French avant-garde 
especially turned toward the works by their Japanese 
counterparts who were about a generation older—artists 
such as Utagawa Hiroshige, Utamaro, and Hokusai. Manet 
and Degas had already been collecting prints by this time, 
and at the time of Monet’s death, he had amassed a 
collection of more than two hundred. Among them were 
the landscapes of Hiroshige, whose plays with near and far 
and cropping of the view resemble the Frenchman’s 
approaches to landscape most closely. In particular, 
Hiroshige’s prints of Yui and the Satta Pass share qualities 
with View of Vetheuil, with its vertical orientation; the rigid 
diagonal of the foreground; the complete elimination of the 
middle ground; and the sea, sky, and hills in the far 
distance. 2 

While LACMA’s early springtime view marks a finite 
end to one of the worst winters on record, 3 it would be two 
more years before Monet’s financial life and personal life 
thawed. Indeed, the year 1880 continued to be one of 
significant transition. Instead of participating with his 
colleagues in the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition, Monet 
showed at the annual Salon, suggesting, along with his 
concerted effort to work with dealers, that he was actively 
concerned with his marketability and economic success. 
This painting, however, seems to have escaped any type of 
commercial transaction during his lifetime; it was left in his 
studio upon his death and given to his younger son, Michel 
Monet. 4 ll 


167 
























64 

Ary Scheffer 

(1795, Dordrecht-1858, Argenteuil) 

TheLast Communion of Saint Louis, 1823 
Oil on canvas, 18 % x 15 J 4 in. 

(46.4x38.7 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.38 

Provenance 


Signed and inscribed at the bottom: derniere 


Exhibitions 


communion de Saint Louis pour I’eglise de Saint Louis en 


References 


I’lle/15 pds sum Y /A. Scheffer 




168 


Nineteenth Century 


H aving succumbed to dysentery in Tunis en route 
to the Eighth Crusade, Louis IX (1215-1270) 
collapses into the arms of his son and heir, 

Philip III. In The Last Communion of Saint Louis, Aiy Scheffer 
represents the dying king—who would be canonized in 
1297—as he weakly opens his arms to accept the last 
communion from a priest. 1 Using strong contrasts of light 
and dark and the arched roof of the tent, Scheffer focuses 
the viewer’s attention on Louis, who is bathed in a warm 
glow. The rounded forms of the priest and of the weeping 
women in the shadows at the right emphasize the pathos of 
the event and the grief of the onlookers. 

As indicated by the inscription along the lower edge of 
the canvas, LACMA’s sketch was done in preparation for a 
large painting of the same title, commissioned in 1823 for 
the Chapel of Communion in the church of Saint-Louis-en- 
l’lle, Paris. 2 It is the last of three paintings in which Scheffer 
treated episodes from the final days of the king’s life. The 
first, TheDeath of Saint Louis, which he exhibited at the Salon 
of 1817, is also at LACMA (inv. no. 81.2). The second, Saint 
Louis Visiting the Plague-Stricken Soldiers, was painted in 1822 
and purchased by the city of Paris for the church of Saint 
Jean-Saint Frangois. 

The Last Communion of Saint Louis, which today hangs in 
the nave over the doorway to the left of the entrance to the 
church of Saint-Louis-en-l’Ile, Paris, was not completed 
until 1835. In his final version, Scheffer reduced the number 
of attendants included in the sketch and focused on the 
figure of the saint. Louis’s collapsed posture suggests that 
Scheffer was referring to a print after Domenichino’s 
famous Last Communion of Saint Jerome, of 1614 (Pinacoteca 
Vaticana, Rome, inv. no. 40384), which the French Romantic 
critic Stendahl (1783-1842) 3 had recommended to contem¬ 
porary painters. 4 

The interest in Saint Louis reflected an important shift 
in French art and society. Rather than drawing from Greek 
and Roman history to illustrate noble themes popular 
during the French Revolution, artists began turning to 
subjects that were infused with emotion and glorified the 
French national heritage. In 1813, citing Bernard de 


Montfaucon’s well-known five-volume work on the 
monuments of the French monarchy, the painter Jean- 
Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780-1867) advised artists to 
look to medieval France at the time of Saint Louis as “an 
excellent new mine to exploit.” 5 Ingres believed that the 
beautiful costumes of this period in their simplicity 
approached those of the ancient Greeks. French history, he 
suggested, was as good a subject as classical antiquity and 
far more interesting to his contemporaries, who could 
better identify with Saint Louis, Philippe-Auguste, or Louis 
lejeune than with Achilles or Agamemnon. Furthermore, 
the religion animating this historic era could lend paintings 
a mystical air—a sober and profound, indeed majestic 
sentiment. 6 

During the nineteenth century, both the monarchy 
and the church revered Saint Louis and celebrated his life 
for their own purposes. Jean de Joinville’s popular Life of 
Saint Louis provided a contemporary account of the life and 
character of the king. Pious and ascetic, Louis IX partici¬ 
pated in two crusades and was a respected administrator 
and diplomat; during his reign France enjoyed unprece¬ 
dented prosperity and peace. His popularity grew after the 
restoration of the French monarchy in 1814 with the 
installation of Louis XVIII (1755-1824). As a Bourbon 
Catholic, Louis XVIII identified with Louis IX, whose son 
Robert of Clermont had married Beatrice, heiress of 
Bourbon, thus founding the Bourbon line in France. For the 
Catholic Church, which was also experiencing a restoration 
after being suppressed during the Revolution, the celebra¬ 
tion of Saint Louis through Scheffer’s paintings reflected its 
desire to seek religious values in the Middle Ages. 

LACMA’s sketch may have been acquired directly from 
the artist or his estate by the Vitet family. 7 In his Memoires, 
Eugene Aubry-Vitet mentioned visiting Scheffer’s studio 
after the artist’s death: “I went there quite often. I spent 
many hours there, and I always felt the respectful emotion 
that one experiences in a temple; I always thought I could 
see floating there the imprecise but smiling form of he who 
for so long had been celebrating the cult of great art.” 8 AW 


169 











65 

Constant Troyon 

(1810, Sevres-1865, Paris) 

View at La Ferte-Saint-Aubin, 
near Orleans, ca. 1840 

Oil on canvas, 50% x 75% in. 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 

M.91.36 

Provenance 


(129 x 192 cm) 


Exhibitions 


Signed lower left: C. Troyon 


References 




Technical report 






170 


Nineteenth Century 


B y the time Constant Troyon had reached early 
adulthood, Napoleon had lost his empire, and 
France was ceded back to the Bourbon monarchs. 
Sixteen years of oppressive rule resulted in yet another 
revolution in 1830, which, in turn, ended in the installation 
of another, ostensibly more liberal, monarch. The 
“Generation of 1830,” as those who came to maturity around 
this time were known, included a group of painters who 
attempted to capture the experience of nature in a more 
direct way and break from the Academic traditions of 
landscape, in which finish and grandeur were paramount. 
Exemplary of this new aesthetic, Troyon’s work stands very 
much on the cusp between an idealized and romanticized 
view of the past and the immediate observation of the 
present. Living through this period not only exposed the 
artist to a constantly shifting political situation, but also 
positioned him at a time when France was undergoing 
equivalent change on the cultural front, as its citizens made 
their way toward the modern era. 

Troyon’s artistic upbringing largely took place in the 
porcelain factory for which his hometown of Sevres was best 
known. Not insignificantly, similar paths were trod by 
friends and fellow landscapists Jules Dupre and Narcisse- 
Virgilio Diaz de la Pena. Troyon was first introduced to 
landscape painting through the outdoor sketches he made 
for his porcelain painting. This fine, detailed work, which 
often included pastoral landscapes, later developed 
alongside pictures by Dupre and Diaz, as well as Theodore 
Rousseau, Camille Corot, and Jean-Francois Millet. This 
group of artists came together around the town of Barbizon 
and continued their movement away from the constraints 
of the Academic tradition by connecting to the power of the 
French countiyside. This interest was not only artistically 
significant but also had political resonances, for it was 
among these painters that a connection to the physical 
territory of rural France was established. Whereas Troyon 
ultimately became known as a successful painter of animals, 
it was with this loose group of landscapists that he garnered 
early and significant attention from the French state, the 
French public, and his fellow artists. 


View at La Ferte-Saint-Aubin, near Orleans is one of 
Troyon’s largest and most impressive canvases. It is a 
stunning Salon picture representative of his work in the 
late 1830s to the early 1840s, as his confidence vis-a-vis scope 
and execution is first established. 1 The balanced composi¬ 
tion presents groups of figures with their domesticated 
animals in quotidian acts of village life. A mother and child 
walk along a path, a man plays with his dog, another two 
men cut wood, and a group of kids play in a tree. While the 
expansiveness of scale is given by the elements in the 
middle ground and by the horizon in the far distance, the 
vista itself is not particularly remarkable. The small pond, 
copse of trees, and calm skies reinforce the mundanity of 
the scene. But this is where the ordinariness ends: the 
monumental scale and the exquisite deployment of paint to 
render the simple details of the scene are magnificent. 
Troyon’s beautiful attention to minutiae is remarkable not 
just for its execution but also for its evenhandedness across 
the canvas. It allows for a scene of this scale to succeed 
without losing focus. The painting also triumphs owing to 
Troyon’s varied palette and his lively brushwork, which 
hints at the freedom soon to come from his younger 
Impressionist colleagues. 11 

While Troyon certainly draws on the classical land¬ 
scapes of his French forebears Poussin and Claude, it is 
rather to an Englishman—John Constable—that the 
nineteenth-century French artist owes his greatest debt. 
Constable, along with other British landscape painters, had 
by this time established a national school of painting 
whereby the humility of the scene was of major significance. 
Constable’s work exhibited at the 1824 Salon in Paris had a 
definitive influence on French landscape painters of the 
1830s. 3 Everyday life was depicted on a monumental scale, 
with subject matter accessible and familiar. This honesty 
toward nature and the rural life that it nurtures is what was 
picked up by Troyon and his fellow Barbizon painters, and 
it is what places them on the trajectory toward realism, 
practiced so fervently by the following generation of the 
French avant-garde, ll 


171 














66 

Edouard Vuillard 

(1868, Cuiseaux-1940, La Baule- 
Escoublac) 

Landscape at L’Etang-la-Ville, ca. 1900 Gift ofHoward Ahmanson, Jr. 

Oil on canvas, 13 x 18 Vs in. (33 x 46 cm) M.81.259.2 

Signed with estate stamp lower right: E. Vuillard 

Provenance 


Exhibitions 



References 



Technical report 





172 


Nineteenth Century 


E douard Vuillard is perhaps best known for his 
magnificent, tapestry-like interior scenes and 
large-scale domestic decorations produced during 
the 1890s, when he was a member of the Nabis. This group 
was formed in the late 1880s by Vuillard and his friends 
Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis, and Ker-Xavier Roussel, 
among others. Paul Serusier had been the prime mover in 
galvanizing the others to enter into an association. Their 
work spanned all media and promoted a unity of the arts, in 
which the traditional hierarchies between painterly output 
and other types of media, such as graphics, textiles, and 
decorative art, were broken down. Their inspiration came 
from the synthetic approach that Paul Gauguin developed 
in Pont-Aven, from the shrunken depth of Japanese prints, 
and from Art Nouveau and even maintained a link with 
Impressionism. Vuillard’s paintings completed in this 
decade are profoundly intimate; even the larger canvases 
exude a powerful interiority, one that brought him success 
in the 1890s. 

About 1900 Vuillard’s work was shifting away from 
these influences toward a more mature style. This approach 
was far more naturalistic than that of the previous decade 
and in many ways set him apart from the trajectory of 
modernism. It is also around this time that Vuillard first 
focused on landscape painting as more than just a backdrop 
in his decorative works. He began to create small landscapes 
while traveling throughout France, particularly to destina¬ 
tions outside Paris where friends and family spent the 
summer months. These stays were convenient and familiar 
and, most important for Vuillard, who referred to his own 
idleness when it came to painting, they encouraged an easy 
environment in which to create. 1 Often these landscapes 
were made comfortably indoors, with a view to the outside 
through a window. This allowed for the same creative 
process as employed with his interiors, done with patience 
and with solitude, and without being exposed to the 
potentially difficult effects of the weather when painting 
en pie in air. 

The present landscape is an excellent example of 
Vuillard’s approach to painting during this time, as he 
captures the domesticated hillside and small red-roofed 


houses of the French countryside. In its first known 
exhibition in 1950, the painting was shown with the title 
Landscape at Vaucresson —named for a small village where his 
friends Jos and Lucy Hessel owned a home beginning in 
1907 and where the artist often visited. However, the 
provenance of the painting suggests that it was executed 
instead in the town of L’Etang-la-Ville, where Vuillard’s 
dear friend and brother-in-law, Ker-Xavier Roussel, settled 
permanently with his family in 1899. There, Vuillard 
produced a handful of landscapes from an upper floor of 
the three-story house, which stood on a hill in the upper 
part of the village and looked across a valley to the forest of 
Marly-le-Roi beyond. 2 Roussel was the first owner of the 
picture, and he then gave the canvas to Henri Cointepas, 
whose home was in Marly from at least 1922. 

The diminutive painting remains a subtle patchwork 
of grays, greens, muted yellows, and peach, each color 
suggesting a parcel of cultivated land, a domestic structure, 
trees, sky, or water. The setting is descriptive but not 
documentary; it is a meditation on color and form that 
transcends specificity but does not lose the familiarity of a 
well-visited place. Vuillard painted a number of these small 
views during his visits to L’Etang-la-Ville around 1900, and 
his two largest decorative commissions and the last project 
he executed for his close friends Thadee and Adam 
Natanson also utilize the same countryside as a subject. 3 
Window Overlooking the Woods (Art Institute of Chicago, inv. 
no. 1981.77) a.nd First Fruits (The Norton Simon Foundation, 
Pasadena, inv. no. F. 1973.33.1. P), completed in 1899, depict 
the hills and structures of this small village just six miles 
west of Paris. However, these two monumental scenes differ 
not only in scale from the diminutive Landscape at L’Etang- 
la-Ville but also in their projection of the landscape. The 
large canvases subordinate specific details for an overall 
decorative effect across their twelve-foot widths, and the 
rigidity of the decorations, particularly in First Fruits, is 
completely different from the casual sensibility of the small 
landscape study. The intimacy of LACMA’s picture is not 
just a reflection of its diminutive scale; this quality is 
granted through the immediacy and freedom of the artist’s 
gesture, ll 


173 




















Felix Ziem 

(1821, Beaune-1911, Paris) 

Provenance 

Exhibitions 

References 



Mermaids under Water, before 1870 The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Oil on canvas, 14 14 X 26 in. (36.2 X 66 cm) Gift ofTheAhmanson Foundation 

Mil 1 r ill . , M.2000.179.42 

Inscribed lower left: Esquisse du tableau Les Sirenes sous 

marines/a mon ami Arsene/Ziem/18/4 

Inscribed on the back: Projet decoration pour maison 

d’Arsene Houssaye aujourd’hui demolie (emplacement de la 

maison Durand-Ruel). 



174 


Nineteenth Century 


A rsene Houssaye (1815-1896), to whom this painting 
was inscribed, was a prolific author, critic, publisher, 
and art administrator in the second half of the 
nineteenth century. Well connected with writers, such as 
Theophile Gautier, Houssaye met the young Felix Ziem 
about 1849 and became an early champion and collector of 
his work. The present sketch is the only document illustrat¬ 
ing a decoration Ziem executed for Houssaye’s house. 1 
However, despite Ziem’s scrupulous habit of listing his 
works, there is no mention of a decoration for the writer’s 
home in the artist’s notes, nor is it recorded in any of the 
literature on the artist. 2 The lack of records and information 
may suggest that it was a gift from the painter to the writer 
rather than a commission. The project was nevertheless 
important enough for Ziem to clarify his design with a 
preparatory sketch or possibly several sketches. If the exact 
date of Ziem’s decoration of the Houssaye house is 
unknown, the later inscription on the back of the painting 
to the efFect that Houssaye’s house had later become the 


“maison Durand-Ruel” provides a clue. In 1852, according to 
his memoirs, Houssaye lived on the rue Beaujon, near the 
Arc de Triomphe on the west side of Paris. 3 The rue Beaujon, 
originally part of an eighteenth-century estate, was 
redesigned in 1859 in order to make room for the extension 
of the avenue de Friedland below the rue de Tilsitt. In the 
process, Houssaye’s house was destroyed and a new 
building erected on what was now the avenue de Friedland, 
where the firm of Durand-Ruel eventually moved in. Thus, 
the decoration must have been executed between 1849, the 
date of the first meeting between the two men, and the 
destruction of the rue Beaujon in 1859. 

Thinly painted and swiftly executed, the sketch has 
the qualities of a pochade (a rough sketch). The subject is 
unusual for Ziem, who specialized in both accurate and 
fantasy views of Venice, Constantinople, and other cities, but 
its hazy narrative would have appealed to Houssaye, who, 
in the reviews he directed, published Charles Baudelaire, 
Gerard de Nerval, and other pre-Symbolist poets. JPM 


175 





















ENDNOTES 


51 Carries (back to entry) 

1 Vartyi959. 

2 See, for instance, The Beautiful Dutch Woman 
(also called Madame Frans Hals, 1884-85; Musee 
de Poissy, Beauvais, inv. no. 2005.8.1). 

3 Such a headdress would in any case be inappropri¬ 
ate for the urbane Loyse Labbe, whose portrait by 
Woeiriot shows a woman following the conven¬ 
tional fashion of an elegant city dweller. 

4 The original cast was by the famous French 
founder Pierre Bingen (1842-1908). It was shown 
in an exhibition organized by Paul Francois and 
Aline Menard-Dorian, who entertained artists, 
writers, and politicians in their salon, one of the 
most frequented of the Third Republic. 

5 The fragments of the commission are now at the 
Musee du Petit-Palais, Paris, which is a repository 
for many sculptures by Carries. 

6 A version in unglazed porcelain is at the Musee 
du Petit-Palais, Paris (inv. no. PPS568). 

7 Alexandre 1895. 

52 David (back to entry) 

1 Paris 1989-90, p. 621. 

2 San Diego 2003-4. 

3 Bordes 2006, pp. 31-32. 

4 See Wildenstein and Wildenstein 1973, p. 200, 
1754. Vigee-Lebrun did not answer David’s 
attempt at reconciliation. 

53 Diaz de la Pena (back to entry) 

1 See, for instance, Young Women in Turkish Costumes, 
1862, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. no. 30.501. 

54 Dubufe (back to entry) 

1 American Federation of Arts 1994-95, p. 156. 

Falguiere (back to entry) 

1 Th. Veron, De I’art des artistes de mon temps, 2nd ed. 
(Paris, 1875), p. 71, quoted in Sale 1996, p. 28. 

2 Montaiglon 1875, p. 516. 

3 According to Sale 1996, p. 29 n. 1, the identifica¬ 
tion of the three spectators was made by V. de 

Swarte, Lettres sur le Salon de 1875 (Saint-Omer, 1875), 
p. 50, and by Emile Bergerat, “Le Salon de 1875,” 
fifth article, Le journal official de laRepublique 
fran$aise, 1 June 1875, p. 301. Sale notes that the 
identification of Delaplanche is questionable 
because he is shown wearing a rosette, a symbol of 
his promotion to chevalier of the Legion of Honor, 
which did not occur until the following year. 


4 Joanna Barnes in American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 120. 

5 Sale 1996, p. 29 n. 1. 

6 Sale 1996, p. 28, suggested that Falguiere may 
have relied on photographs of wrestlers to 
capture the poses accurately. Her theory was 
confirmed the following year when the 
photograph was exhibited and published in Paris, 
i997~98a, pp. 72-75,188. The essay on the 
painting is by Helene Pinet. 

7 Sale 1996, p. 28, identifies the location, which was 
popular with amateur wrestlers. 


57 Flandrin (back to entry) 


1 Regarding the commission, see Horaist 1979 and 
Bruno Horaist, “Peintures murals: Saint-Germain- 
des-Pres,” in Paris-Lyon 1984-85, pp. 125-53. 

2 Flandrin estate sale, Paris 1865, p. 18, lots 108 and 
109. 

3 Paris-Lyon 1984-85, p. 146. The drawing also appears 
among a group of five drawings for the scene in 
the 1865 estate sale of Flandrin’s collection, lot 108, 
“Un Cadre de cinq dessins:... Figure d’Abraham,” 
suggesting that the drawing of Abraham had not 
sold and was returned to the family. 


58 


Gerard (back to entry) 


1 See Moulin 1983. 

2 Schama 1989, p. 614. 

3 Olander 1989, especially pp. 36-37. 

4 Illustrated in Houston and other cities 1973-75, 
p.36. 

5 See Moulin 1983, p. 201 n. 9. 

6 Marandel 1989, p. 223. 

7 Moulin 1983, p. 198. 


61 


Langlois ( back to entry) 


1 Regarding Wicar’s painting, see Perugia 2002, 

PP- 45 - 49 ,209-16. 

2 I am grateful for the insights provided by Josh 
Summer, Graduate Fellow in Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA, Winterthur/University of 
Delaware Graduate Program in Art Conservation, 
who studied Langlois’s painting in summer 2015. 

3 The Carnavalet sketch is 32 by 45 cm, thus 
comparable in size to the LACMA sketch, which is 
33.7 by 46.4 cm. In addition to the architecture 
and lighting, the Carnavalet sketch differs in 
details from the LACMA sketch and final 
composition in that the three major figures are to 
the right of center; the two men to the right of 
Joseph wear white robes; and the positions and 
details of some of the other figures have also 
shifted. The dove, present in the Carnavalet 
sketch but not in LACMA’s, is present in the final 
painting. 

4 American Federation of Arts 1994-95, p. 123. 


62 


Millet (back to entry) 


1 For a detailed article on the various versions of 
this subject, see Herbert 1980. 

2 This image is known only from a photograph. See 
Herbert 1980, p. 14, and A in the appendix, p. 19. 

3 The morality so apparent in Millet’s work was a 
quality that was first admired by the English and 
Americans, a feature reflected in the provenance of 
many of Millet’s paintings and drawings. This 
picture was in New York by at least 1902 and may 
well have been here earlier. 

4 Sensier 1881, p. 205. 

5 Moreau-Nelaton 1921, pp. 70-71, fig. 269. 


59 Gerome (back to entry) 

1 Ackerman 1986. 

2 American Federation of Arts 1994-95, p. 164, 
no. 116. 

60 La.fitte (back to entry) 

1 In conversation with the author. 

2 See Albuquerque 1980, p. 26. 

3 McKee 1941. On the relevance of the subject of 
Brutus during the French Revolution, starting 
with David’s Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies 
of His Sons (1789; Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. 
3693), see Herbert 1972. Philippe Bordes has also 
suggested that the painting could represent an 
episode of the life of the Gracchi. 

4 Heim, Beraud, and Heim 1989. 


63 Monet (back to entry) 

1 Taboureux 1880, p. 380. 

2 We know that Monet owned at least one of 
Hiroshige’s versions of this subject matter in 
horizontal format (Aitkin and Delafond 2003, no. 
114). 

3 The extreme cold was captured by many artists 
during the winter of 1879-80, including Monet, 
who painted a remarkable series of paintings 
representing the frozen Seine River as it began to 
thaw. For more, see Ann Arbor-Dallas-Minneapolis 
1998. 

4 It was Michel Monet who applied the estate stamp 
of his father’s signature to the canvas. 


176 


Nineteenth Century 


64 Scheffer (back to entry) 

1 Scheffer was referring to the account by the king’s 
contemporary Jean de Joinville in Vie de Saint Louis, 
1309. Although de Joinville accompanied Louis on 
the Eighth Crusade, he clearly states he was not 
present when the king died and relied on the 
accounts of others for his description of the death. 
See De Joinville 1955, p. 216: “After the good King 
had given his instructions to his son, my Lord 
Philip, his sickness grew dangerously worse. He 
asked for the sacraments of Holy Church and 
received them, it could be seen, in sound mind 
and with full understanding, for when he was 
anointed and they said the seven penitential 
psalms he recited the verses in his turn. I have 
heard his son, my Lord the Count of Alengon, 
describe how at the approach of death he called on 
the saints to help and succor him.... Afterwards 
the holy King had himself laid on a bed covered 
with ashes, crossed his hands on his breast, and, 
looking up to Heaven, gave back his spirit to our 
Creator, at the very hour when the Son of God 
died on the Cross for the salvation of the world.” 

2 Boinet 1964, p. 38. Kolb 1937, p. 278, believed that 
Scheffer painted La derniere communion de saint Louis 
in 1815, making it the first of the series for the 
church. 

3 Pen name for Marie-Henri Beyle. 

4 Cox-Rearick 1997, p. 233, cites Stendahl and the Arts, 
ed. David Wakefield (New York, 1973), pp. 40,112. 
Stendahl was particularly impressed by 
Domenichino’s chiaroscuro. 

5 Honour 1979, p. 189. 

6 De Laborde 1870, pp. 324-25, cited in Kolb 1937, 
pp. 278-79. 

7 See note 1 in Provenance. 

8 Eugene Auby-Vitet, Memoires, notes, et souvenirs sur 
ma familie (Paris, 1932), quoted in Kolb 1937, p. 211. 

65 Troyoil (back to entry) 

1 The Salon livret for 1837 lists the painting, no. 1741, 
as Vue prise a la Ferte-Saint-Aubin, pres Orleans, and 
the livret for 1840 lists the painting, no. 1564, 
simply as Vue prise aux environs d’Orleans. However, 
the stamp on the reverse of the canvas (“Deforges 
Marchand du Couleurs, 8 Blvd Montmarte”) 
suggests the painting was made no earlier than 
1840. (Th e Almanack Didot-Bottin, the Parisian 
directory of addresses, both private and 
commercial, for 1839 lists Deforges’s address at 154 
Saint-Martin, and by 1840 the firm was split 
between that address and 8 Blvd. Montmartre, 
where it would remain located over the following 
several decades.) 

2 The father of the movement, Claude Monet, 
wrote of Troyon on several occasions, praising his 
luminosity and movement. See, for example, 
Monet to Boudin, 3 June 1859, published in 
Wildenstein 1974, vol. 1, p. 419. 


3 While the influence of Constable on French 
landscape painting at this time is well known, 
Philip Conisbee was the first to note the influence 
of Constable’s View on the Stour near Dedham 
(Huntington Library, Art Collection, and 
Botanical Garends, San Marino, inv. no. 25.18), 
specifically on this image. The painting was 
exhibited in the 1824 Salon alongside the The Hay 
Wain (The National Gallery, London, inv. no. NG 
1207). See Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 
203-4. 

66 Vuillard ( back to entry) 

1 Glasgow-Sheffield-Amsterdam 1991-92, p. 76. 

2 Glasgow-Sheffield-Amsterdam 1991-92, p. 77. 

3 Groom 1990, p. 157. 

67 Ziem (back to entry) 

1 Joanna Barnes, in American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, p. 161, mentions a painting representing 
mermaids, sold at Parke Bernet, New York, on 5 
March 1942 (lot 80, not illustrated), and suggested 
that it could relate to the present work or even be 
part of the lost decoration. 

2 Miquel 1978, vol. 1, p. 65. 

3 Houssaye 1895, p. 237. 


177 



























APPENDIX 


1 (back to entry) 

Valentin de Boulogne 

(1591, Coulommiers-1632, Rome) 
A Musical Party, ca. 1623-26 
Oil on canvas, 44 x 57% in. 

(111.5 x 146.5 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
AC1998.58.1 


PROVENANCE 

Louis Jacques Aime Theodore de Dreux 
(d. 1719), marquis de Nancre, captain of 
the Swiss Guards of the due d’Orleans, 
to; 1 Philippe de Bourbon (1674-1723), 
due d’Orleans, before 1719, by direct 
descent to; Louis Philippe (1747-1793), 
later called “Philippe Egalite,” due 
d’Orleans, Palais-Royal, Paris, by 1727/ 
sold in 1791 to; 3 the vicomte Edouard de 
Walckiers, Brussels, sold 1792 to his 
cousin; Frangois Louis Joseph (1761- 
1801), marquis de Laborde de Mereville, 
Paris and London, sold to; Jeremias 
Harman, sold on behalf of the syndicate 
led by the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, the 
5th Earl of Carlisle, and Lord Gower, 
later Duke of Sutherland (private 
contract sale, London, Michael Bryan 
[1757-1821], 26 Dec. 1798, lot 83, as A 
Concert, sold to); 4 Francis Egerton 
(1736-1803), 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, 
Bridgewater House, by inheritance to 
his nephew; George Granville Levisin- 
Gower (1758-1833), later 2nd Marquess 
of Stafford and 1st Duke of Sutherland, 
Cleveland House, London, by direct 
descent to; John Sutherland Egerton 
(1915-2000), 5th Earl of Ellesmere and 
6th Duke of Sutherland, Bridgewater 
House, London (sale, London, Christie’s, 
18 Oct. 1946, lot 162, as “Moise le 
Valentin, The Senses,” sold for £[?]42o 
to); 5 [Leonard Koetser, London, for]; 
[Wildenstein & Co., New York and Paris, 
sold 1998 to]; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Sarasota i960, no. 9, ill., lent by 
Wildenstein & Co., New York; Jacksonville 
1961, p. 34, no number, ill. p. 37, lent by 
Wildenstein & Co., New York; Columbia 
1965, no. 3, ill. p. 3; Dayton-Baltimore 
1965-66, exhibited only in Baltimore as 
“Related Paintings by Terbrugghen’s 
Contemporaries,” but not included in 
catalogue; Sydney-Melbourne 2003-4, 
no. 63, ill.; Montpellier-Toulouse 2012 
(Montpellier only), no. 40, pp. 192-93, 
ill.; Los Angeles-Hartford 2012-13, 
no. 23, p. 83, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Saint-Gelais 1727, annotated in margin, 
“Nancre,” and fol. 502; Saint-Gelais 1737, 
vol. 5, pp. 479-80,511; Dezallier 
d’Argenville 1749, vol. 1, p. 60; Dezallier 
d’Argenville 1757, p. 74; Dezallier 
d’Argenville 1762, vol. 4, p. 48; Thiery 
1787, vol. 1, p. 243; Fontenay 1786-1808, 
vol. 3 (1808), unnumbered pi. and text; 
Ottley 1818, vol. 1, pp. 3,26, no. 48, vol. 2 
(plates), p. 2, pi. 16; Buchanan 1824, vol. 1, 
p. 157; Westmacott 1824, p. 206, no. 284; 
Young 1825, vol. 1, pp. 33-34, engraving 
opp. p. 34; Waagen 1837, vol. 1, pp. 335, 
512; Waagen 1838, vol. 1, appendix B, p. 
334, vol. 2, p. 61; Jameson 1844, p. 131, no. 
120; Cabinet de l’amateuriS4.2-4.6, vol. 3 
(1844), p. 520; Bridgewater 1851, p. 3, no. 
2; Bridgewater 1856, p. 5, no. 2; Blanc 1861- 
76, vol. 1 (1862), p. 15; Lejeune 1863-64, 
vol. 1 (1863), p. 159; Bonnaffe 1884, p. 

229; Tronchin 1895, p. 254; Champier 
and Sandoz 1900, p. 515; Bridgewater 
1907, no. 2; Stryienski 1913, pp. 13,98, 

178, no. 349, ill. opp. p. 98; Voss 1940, p. 
64; Costello 1950, p. 251 n. 8; Longhi 
1958, p. 61, incorrectly identifies the 
owner as Leger Gallery, London; Revel 
1958, ill. p. 70, as with Wildenstein; 

Hoog i960, pp. 268-69; Nicolson i960, 
p. 226; “Correction: Notable Works of 
Art” i960; Mirimonde 1965, p. 222 n. 32; 
Dayton-Baltimore 1965-66, exhibited 
in conjunction with this show as 
“Related Paintings by Terbrugghen’s 
Contemporaries” (no exh. cat.); New 
York 1967, mentioned as another version 
of no. 19, Valentin’s The Concert, lent by 


Nicholas M. Acquavella; Geneva 1974, 
p. 168, cited under no. 330 (the entry 
includes a number of mistakes), ill. p. 

167 with engraving by Huber; Paris 1974, 
p. 252; Cuzin 1975, p. 59; Nicolson 1979, 
p. 106; Wright 1985, p. 268; Mojana 1989, 
pp. 116-17, no. 32, ill., detail p. 36, also 
cited pp. 28,120 (under no. 34), 218 
(under nos. 100,101), 219 (under nos. 102, 
103), 220 (under no. 104); Nicolson 1989, 
vol. 1, p. 204, vol. 2, pi. 692; Nice 1991, 
p. 106, cited under no. 38; Montreal- 
Rennes-Montpellier 1993, p. 91, cited 
under no. 18; Bowron 1994-95, PP- 51, 52, 
59 n. 43, ill. p. 52, fig. 7; Caroli 1996, pp. 
43 > 45; Beckett 2000, pp. 242-43; 
Cremona-Vienna 2000-2001, p. 243; 
London-Rome 2001, p. 111; Los Angeles 
2006, pp. 33-34, ill.; Blois 2008, p. 172; 
Philippon 2012, pp. 28-29, ill- 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The original support, a plain-weave 
canvas, has the addition of a horizontal 
strip of canvas about 5 inches wide that 
was sewn to the top of the painting, 
probably in the eighteenth century. No 
imagery extends onto the addition. The 
painting was lined to canvas probably 
in the last fifty years. There are no labels 
or marks on the reverse of the painting 
or stretcher. 

The dark gray-brown-colored ground 
retains brush marks from its applica¬ 
tion. In the infrared photograph, a dark 
outline is visible for some forms, for 
example, along the lower side of the 
violinist’s right arm. It was painted over 
with his sleeve. The sketch was probably 
executed with paint and brush. 

Paint layers are generally thin. The 
artist applied midtones of local color, 
which he brushed out to thinness over 
the dark ground to create gradations 
from light to shadow. In the faces and 
hands, the dark gray ground color 


178 


shows through the thin scumbles of 
paint. The violinist’s right blue sleeve 
was executed in this way, and glazes 
were used for deeper shadows. The faces 
of the boy and woman were blended 
wet-in-wet to a higher finish than is 
found in any other areas. In contrast, 
the face and dress of the lute player 
have different tones abutting each other, 
and brush marks are evident. 

Valentin readily painted forms over 
forms and made changes. The infrared 
vidicon revealed a dramatic change: The 
flutist may have originally been a 
younger fellow who looked down 
toward his instrument. When the artist 
repainted the figure, it was necessary to 
paint the flutist’s right side over part of 
the tambourine player and her instru¬ 
ment. The hair of the two males at the 
left was painted over the woman behind 
them. The legs of the lute player and 
right forearm of the violinist were 
partially executed before being covered 
with garments. In addition, dark 
outlines of earlier placements of the 
violin are now visible through the aged 
layers of oil colors, and adjustments 
along the outlines of most figures can 
be detected. 

Cracks in the paint on the addition have 
sharp edges and a wide interval. They 
are very different from cracks in the rest 
of the painting that have smaller 
intervals and greater varieties of 
branching. Later restoration covering 
the seam has incisions to imitate cracks. 
Thin paints have some abrasion and 
growing transparency owing to the 
aging of oil paints. A few areas, such as 
the shadows of the table, have suffered 
more, and as a result, the dark ground 
or underpaint is visible. The work, 
which has not been cleaned in some 
years, has a discolored, nonsaturating 
varnish that contains wax. While the 
painting could benefit from light 
cleaning and revarnishing, the old 
varnish softens any lost transitions and 
shadows, thereby eliminating any 
strong contrasts between light and dark. 


NOTES 

1 Also known as Forest Nancre. According to 
Stryienski 1913, p. 13: “ M. de Nancre, compagnon 
d’armes du due d’Orleans en Italie et en Espagne, 
nomme capitaine des Suisses au Palais-Royal, 
veut-il reconnaitre les bienfaits dont il est comble, 
il cede gracieusement le dessus du panier de sa 
collection a son protecteur: quatre Albane, trois 
Annibal Carrache, un Louis Carrache, un P.-F. 

Mola, un Valentin—il faut noter que e’etait la un 
joli cadeau pour l’epoque: au XVIII e siecle qui 
avait dit Carrache avait tout dit: beau comme le 
Carrache etait un dicton courant.” 

2 Listed in Saint-Gelais’s 1727 Description des tableaux 
du Palais Royal... /Dediee a Monseigneur le Due 
d’Orleans ... item 484, “f.481-82 La Musique. 

Peint sur toile, haut de trois pieds cinq pouces & 
demi, large de quatre pieds six pouces. Fig. de 
grandeur naturelle. On voit sur le devant un 
home aupres d’une table qui touche un luth, & 
une fille vis-a-vis qui joue du violon. Un vieillard 
apuie sur la meme table regarde le joueur de luth, 
il y a une fille a cotee de lui qui bat du tambour de 
basque, & tout proche un Soldat qui boit. Le fond 
du Tableau est brun” (Getty Provenance Index, 
Archival Inventories Database). Dezallier 
d’Argenville 1749, p. 60, lists “Une musique, du 
Valentin” in the Chambre des Poussins of the 
Palais-Royal, where it hung with, but apparently 
not next to, Valentin’s The Four Ages of Man. Both 
paintings were still in the same gallery in 1757, 
but thirty years later, Thiery 1787, p. 243, noted 
that Valentin’s Four Ages of Man still hung in the 
Chambre des Poussins, but the Musical Party [Une 
concert] had been moved to the “Cabinet de la 
Lanterne,” where it hung next to “Leportrait 

de Clement VII[I], par le Titien and Le martyre de 
S. Pierre par Giorgion.” 

3 Regarding the sale and distribution of the 
Orleans collection, see “Collection du Palais 
Royal,” in Cabinet de l’amateur 1842-46, vol. 3 (1844), 
pp. 497-507. 

4 See Buchanan 1824, pp. 16-20. See also Getty 
Provenance Index, Sales Catalogues Database, 
“description of Sale Catalogue Br-As676, 

26 Dec. 1798.” 

5 It is unclear why the painting was titled The Senses, 
apparently a reference to Les cinq sens, one of 

the three paintings by Valentin in the Orleans 
collection. Historically, in catalogues of the 
Bridgewater collection, with its one Valentin, the 
painting was correctly called A Music Party. See 
Ottley 1818, vol. 1, no. 48. 


2 (back to entry) 

Claude Lorrain 
(Claude Gellee) 

(1604, Champagne-1682, Rome) 
Pastoral Landscape with a Mill, 1634 
Oil on canvas, 23 x 32 5 /s in. 

(59 x 82.8 cm) 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.86.259 


PROVENANCE 

Filleul family, France. 1 [Wildenstein & 
Co., Paris and New York, in 1975]. Mr. 
and Mrs. J. Seward Johnson, Jr., 2 
Princeton, NJ, by 1980, sold 1986 
through; [Wildenstein & Co., Paris and 
New York, to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

New York 1975, no. 34, date mistakenly 
cited as 1674; Washington-Paris 1982-83, 
p. 132, no. 22, ill., lent by Mr. and Mrs. J. 
Seward Johnson, Jr. 

REFERENCES 

Roethlisberger 1979, pp. 24,26, fig. 39; 
Roethlisberger 1981, p. 52 n. 10; Wright 
1985, p. 157; Los Angeles 1987, pp. 2-3, 
ill., color detail on cover; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 165-68, no. 
43, ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The original support is a plain-weave, 
medium-weight canvas lined with an 
aqueous adhesive to canvas and 
stretched on an older stretcher. Scallops 
exist to varying degrees along the 
perimeter of the painting. 

Paint ranges from opaque light colors 
that retain brushstrokes to thin 
translucent darks. The X-radiograph 
shows a reserve for the landscape, and it 
reveals the broad, regular brushstrokes 
of the dense paint of the sky and distant 
hills. As the artist finished the sky with 
careful applications of local color, he 
adjusted trees over the sky. It appears 
that Claude reworked the foliage on the 
left side of the tall tree, where brush¬ 
strokes—short, narrow, and 
irregular—are distinctive in the 
X-radiograph. The limb branching off 
the middle of the same tree was painted 
on top of the clouds. The X-radiograph 
shows a reserve for the hill at the center 
of the picture that slopes down at about 
a 30-degree angle to the right edge of 
the picture. The distant mountains and 
hills at the right were painted down to 
the reserve, while the upper inch of the 
bush-covered hill at the middle 


179 











distance was painted over the hills in 
the background. Figures and animals 
were painted after the landscape was 
completed. The foliage at lower right is 
finely painted with small brushes. 

The painting has a clear varnish, but 
there are remnants of an old discolored 
varnish in the crevices of the paint. 
Although the condition of the painting 
is rather good, it was harshly lined so 
the weave impression is noticeable. Past 
cleanings created a stronger contrast 
between the light sky and the dark 
landscape where surface paints have 
been abraded. Small restorations are 
scattered over the picture. The first two 
numerals of the date are legible, and the 
3 is acceptable. The last numeral is 
unclear. It appears to have an I shape 
that would resemble a 4; however, no 
vertical post is visible. At the end of the 
date there is a stroke of the same dark 
paint used for the inscription. 

NOTES 

1 The Filleul family was closely associated with the 
royal family of France during the ancien regime. 

In 1847 Edouard Filleul (1818-1907) married 
Rosine Girodet Becquerel-Despreaux (nee Girodet 
de Roussy), the niece and heir of the artist 
Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson. It was her second 
marriage. An inventory of Edouard Filleul made 
in 1850 includes works also found in an inventory 
made after the death of his wife’s first husband in 
1835, as well as other paintings presumably 
brought to the marriage by Filleul. Regarding the 
Filleul family, see the introduction to the 
catalogue of the sale “Tableaux anciens de la 
collection Peyriague,” Sotheby’s, Monaco, 21 June 
1991. LACMA’s painting was sold privately in 1975 
and thus not included in the sale. 

2 John Seward Johnson II, known as J. Seward 
Johnson, Jr., or simply as Seward Johnson (b. 1930), 
is an American artist. He began as a painter but is 
best known for his life-size cast bronze statues. 

See Sewardjohnsonatelier.org. 

3 (back to entry) 

Antoine Coypel 

(1661-1722, Paris) 

The Baptism of Christ, ca. 1690 
Oil on canvas, 53 5 /s x 38 Y\s in. 
(136.2x97.6 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.90.154 


PROVENANCE 

Collection of the artist, Paris, by descent 
to; Charles-Antoine Coypel (sale, Paris, 
Apr. 1753 [no date], lot 88, bought in by); 
M. de Saint Philippe (a.k.a. Philippe 
Coypel de Saint-Philippe). Collection of 
Ange-Laurent de La Live de Jully 
(1725-1779) (his sale, Paris, 5 Mar. 1770, 
lot 64, to); Meneau, Conseiller 
Municipal. * 1 [P. & D. Colnaghi & Co. Ltd., 
London, sold 1990 to]; LACMA. 

REFERENCES 

La Live de Jully 1764 and 1770, p. 35, 
no. 64; Hebert (1767) 1992, vol. 1, p. 118; 
Lille 1968, p. 46, under no. 46; Gamier 
1989, p. 111, under no. 43; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 195-98, 
no. 50, ill.; Bailey 2002, p. 52. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The painting is executed on a fine, 
plain-weave canvas, and it has been 
lined with an aqueous adhesive to 
another canvas. Tacking edges have 
been trimmed. 

The painting has a pinkish-tan ground. 
No underdrawing is visible in the 
infrared photo. However, in normal 
light a few faint red lines apparently 
made with a dry medium are visible in 
the hair of the angel wearing pink. 

The heavenly figures and some areas of 
the sky and clouds have a light gray 
underpaint that does not exist else¬ 
where. Paint application varies from 
thin washes, glazes, and scumbles to 
thick impasto. The forms were generally 
worked up side by side with only minor 
overlapping. Pentimenti are visible 
where some of the figures and details 
have been adjusted. On the right side, 
for example, the artist repositioned the 
wing of the angel in pink and slightly 
changed the form of the clouds. 

The condition is good. Nevertheless, 
there is some abrasion of thin paints: for 
example, the thin pink layer on the 
angels’ faces and some dark glazes for 
shadows. The painting was restored not 
long before it was acquired by LACMA. 
It has a synthetic varnish. 


NOTE 

1 Nicole Garnier’s and Philip Conisbee’s suggestion 
that the painting had been bought by the painter 
Frangois-Guillaume Menageot appears 
unsubstantiated. 

4 (back to entry) 

Laurent de La Hyre 

(1606-1656, Paris) 

The Assumption of the Virgin, ca. 1653 
Oil on canvas, 29 x 20 % in. 

(74.9 x52.7 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.3 


PROVENANCE 

Probably Caillard, 1 Paris (sale, Paris, 

Jean Baptiste Pierre Lebrun, 12 Apr. 1797, 
lot 53, “L. Lahire, L’Assomption de la 
Vierge, composition de vingt-deux 
figures. Tableau rempli de finesse & 
d’une belle conservation. Haut. 28 
po[uces] Yi, larg. 19 p[ouces] Yzl’ sold for 
301 frs. to); [Mathieu-Franjois-Louis 
Devouge, Paris]. 2 Probably Caillard, 

Paris (sale, Paris, Jean Baptiste Pierre 
Lebrun, 2 May 1809, lot 128, 
“L’Assomption de la Vierge, composition 
de vingt figures, sur Toile, Haut. 27 po., 
larg. 18”). 3 Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki 
(1924-2015), London, by 1973, sold 2000 
to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, 
no. 50, ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 4, ill.; Los Angeles 2001; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 3, ill. 

NOTES 

1 This is probably Antoine Bernard Caillard 
(1737-1807), who served as French charge 
d’affaires at Philadelphia following the end of the 
American Revolution. A sale of his rare book 
collection that took place in Paris following his 
death identifies him as “ancient Minis tre 
plenipotentiaire de France a Ratisbonne et a 
Berlin, etc., membre de la Legion d’honneur.” 

2 According to the Getty Provenance Index, Sales 
Contents Database, the painting was apparently 
bought in because it reappears for sale by Caillard 
in 1808. 

3 According to the Getty Provenance Index, Sales 
Contents Database, a copy of the catalogue F-193 
is annotated “detestable tableau] [JPH].” 


180 


3 (back to entry) 

Georges de La Tour 

(i 593 . Vic-sur-Seille-1652, Luneville) 

The Magdalen with the SmokingFlame, 

ca. 1635-37 

Oil on canvas, 46 Yt 6 x 36 Ys in. 

(117 x91.8 cm) 

Signed lower right: G. deLa Tour 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.77.73 


PROVENANCE 

Chretien de Nogent, ca. i 64 o (?). La Haye 
family, near Bordeaux, where tradition¬ 
ally attributed to Le Nain and was said 
to come from the eastern part of France. 
Simone La Haye, Paris, ca. 1943, sold 
1977 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Toledo 1977; Washington 1993; 
Washington-Fort Worth 1996-97, pp. 
12-13,110-11, 271,317, no. 23, ill.; Paris 
1997-98, pp. 184-87, no. 33, ill.; Rome 
2000-2001, no. 53, ill.; Sydney- 
Melbourne 2003-4, P-143, no. 32; Los 
Angeles-Hartford 2012-13, PP-140-41, 
152,166, no. 56, ill.; Madrid 2016, front 
cover, pp. 20,34, 83,115,136-41, no. 21, 
ill. 

REFERENCES 

Rosenberg and de 1 ’Epinay 1973, pp. 
132-33, no. 32; Solesmes 1973, p. 159; 
Thuillier 1973, p. 93, no. 38; Nicolson 
and Wright 1974, no. 27, pp. 33-35, pi. 

49; Los Angeles 1980, pp. 21,23; 
Paris-New York-Chicago 1982, p. 354, no. 
12; Rosenberg 1984, p. 41; Bajou 1985, pp. 
64,68; Thuillier 1985, no. 38, ill.; Los 
Angeles 1987, p. 55; Price 1988, p. 75; 
Nicolson 1989, vol. 1, p. 134; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 46-50, no. 

10; Reinbold 1991, p. 146; Rosenberg and 
Mojana 1992, p. 70, no. 23, ill.; St. Guily 

1992, p. 23, ill.; Thuillier 1992, no. 48, ill. 
p. 158, pp. 162,164-65, ill.; Conisbee 

1993, cover, pp. 1-2,10-11,14; Martin 

1994, p. 20; Le Floch 1995, pp. 121-22, 

129, no. 7 (as possibly by Etienne de La 
Tour); Wright 1995, p. 42, ill. p. 43; 
Chone 1996, pp. 144-45, ilk; Cuzin 1996, 
p. 22; Seidel 1996, fig. 180; Breme 1997, 
pp. 87-91, ill. p. 88; Chauvet 1997, p. 28; 


l8l Appendix 


Cuzin and Salmon 1997, pp. 100,105, ill.; 
Rosenberg 1997, p. 285; Umemiya 2001; 
Sotheby’s 2003, p. 154; Los Angeles 2003, 
cover, pp. 97-98; Stokstad 2004, p. 744; 
Bozal 2005, p. 105; Brommer 2005, p. 
341; Germain 2005, p. 82; Tokyo 2005, p. 
169; Los Angeles 2006, pp. 43, ills. 27 
detail and 44; Cuzin 2010, pp. 182,205, 
218-19, 221,245,259,267, ill.; Los 
Angeles 2011, pp. 42-43, ill.; Muchnic 
2015, pp. 103-5; Marandel 2017, pp. 
52-57, ill.; Judovitz 2018, pp. ix, 28-31, 
114,156, pi. 6, ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The Magdalen with the SmokingFlame is 
exceptionally well preserved. There are 
some questions about the present 
dimensions. The original plain-weave 
canvas, when lined at an earlier date, 
lost its tacking margins early on. In 
addition, the top and bottom edges of 
the painting are slightly uneven and 
have some minor losses of paint/canvas, 
suggesting that some slim part of the 
paint was trimmed. Only the left and 
right sides exhibit cusping. The 
painting had an aqueous-type lining 
when it was acquired by the museum, 
and it was mounted on a stretcher that 
added about one-half inch to both the 
top and bottom of the painting. The 
X-radiograph revealed that approxi¬ 
mately one inch on each of the left and 
right sides had been folded over and 
tacked to a smaller stretcher at one time. 
Perhaps, after the top and bottom of the 
painting had to be trimmed, the width 
of the composition was reduced to 
regain something of the original 
proportions. Stretcher creases of equal 
width on all four sides of the painting 
document an earlier stretcher having 
the dimensions of the original painting 
after the top and bottom had been 
trimmed. Irregularly spaced tack holes 
at the extreme edges of the painting, 
which are visible in the X-radiograph, 
were presumably made as the tacking 
margins deteriorated and before the 
painting was ever lined. While tack 
holes on the sides fall within the edges 
that were folded, tack holes at the top 
and bottom have been cut through if 
not eliminated. 


The canvas has a gray ground. No sketch 
or underdrawing was detected with 
infrared photography. Opaque colors 
were applied wet-in-wet and wet-over- 
dry, and dark glazes supplied deep 
shadows. Brushwork ranges from long 
parallel to short multidirectional and 
undulating strokes that follow form, 
and thick dots and dashes of paint 
capture light and texture on the cuffs of 
the Magdalen’s sleeves. The artist laid in 
the anatomy of the figure with a thin 
layer of light gray paint. The 
X-radiograph revealed painted anatomy 
beneath some of the clothing. For 
example, the Magdalen’s right arm was 
minimally painted, and her left 
shoulder extended farther to the right 
before it was foreshortened with the 
white paint of the blouse and the brown 
of the wall. Since heavy-element 
pigments in the red skirt deflected 
X-rays, it is unknown if the anatomy of 
the lower body was painted at all. At the 
saint’s breast, warm flesh tones were 
applied wet-in-wet, leaving visible 
brush marks. Opaque flesh tones were 
brushed out thinly over the darker 
underlayers to create transitions from 
highlights to shadows, while highlights 
were applied thickly with a smooth 
finish. Although light and shadow 
contrast dramatically in Caravaggisti 
paintings, glazes, scumbles, and opaque 
colors provide some sense of transition, 
which is less effective owing to the 
growing transparency of aged and 
abraded oil paints. Although the palette 
is limited, the artist produced many 
tones, not only from color mixing but 
also from the variety of applications. 

For example, the warm to cool white 
and gray tones of the blouse were 
extended or varied by being thickly or 
thinly applied. The dark folds in the 
blouse were painted with brown paint 
brushed openly over the light color of 
the blouse. The thick highlights of the 
heavily shaded right sleeve were 
brushed out to the left over dark 
underlayers to create transitions from 
light to dark, and dark brown was 
conversely applied as a thin film over 
light to manipulate light and shade. 

The back of the sleeve, which is in dark 













shadow, was painted with dark opaque 
brown paint that was enlivened with 
thin scumbles and dark glazes, while 
applications of orange paint on the 
surface suggest transparency or the 
reflection of light. The same type of 
handling is visible on the back wall and 
other areas. Scientific analysis revealed 
that La Tour intensified some of the 
brightest parts of the picture with 
underpainting. The reflected light on 
the back wall has a light gray under¬ 
paint, and bright highlights of forms 
were underpainted with black. 1 The 
X-radiograph revealed a few changes. 
The books on the table seem to have 
been slanted up higher and positioned 
farther to the right. Although the space 
at the lower right of the painting is 
filled with stones and ropes, the 
X-radiograph picked up unrelated 
dense curvilinear lines and shapes that 
seem to relate more to fabric (a long 
skirt or tablecloth?) or such items as 
appear on the floor of The Magdalen with 
the SmokingFlame. 

The excellent condition of this painting 
has been remarked by many. There are a 
few abraded areas that have been toned 
with glazes, for example, the Magdalen’s 
cheek and legs and the rock weights. 
There is a diagonal restoration though 
the figure’s cheek, and two others in the 
background to the right of the face. The 
crack pattern in the paint is linear and 
curved, and there are tiny losses along 
the edges of the cracks. In 1982 Jim 
Greaves restored the painting at LACMA. 
When he removed the discolored natural 
resin varnish, he found several levels of 
restorations, including broad toning to 
disguise abrasion or the unevenness of 
an earlier preferential cleaning. In 
addition, he discovered creative 
repainting, such as bright orange and 
yellow touches in the flame, which he 
removed. The lower part of the painting 
had a “scaly” grayish film that covered 
damages and “hard, older retouching.” 
Fortunately, removal of the film 
revealed original transparent dark 
paint. Greaves removed the old lining 
and relined the painting to another 
canvas with microcrystalline wax to 
address raised cracks and minute 
flaking. The painting was varnished 
with Acryloid resin. 1 


NOTES 

1 Melanie Gifford et al., “Some Observations on 
Georges de La Tour’s Painting Practice,” in 
Washington-Fort Worth 1996-97, pp. 238-57, 
gives additional information on the Los Angeles 
Magdalen, including some pigments and paint 
application methods. 

2 Much of the information for this entry is taken 
from a report by Jim Greaves from 1982-83, in the 
La Tour object file. Department of Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA. 


O (back to entry) 

Louise Moillon 

(ca. 1610-ca. 1696) 

Basket of Peaches with Plums 

and Quinces, after 1641 

Oil on canvas, 26 x 33 J 4 in. (66 x 84.5 cm) 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2010.53 


PROVENANCE 

Heirs of Mme C. (sale, Paris, Bondu, 
Hotel Drouot, 5 Feb. 1962, lot 15, as 
“attributed to Louyse Moillon,” pi. 1). 
“Un grand amateur” (sale, Paris, Ader, 
Picard, Tajan, Drouot-Montaigne, 27 
June 1989, lot 26). Private collection, 
Paris (sale, Paris, PIAZA, Drouot- 
Richelieu, 27 Mar. 2008, lot 93, sold to); 
[Galerie Eric Coatalem, Paris, sold 2010 
to]; LACMA. 


EXHIBITION 
Paris 2009, no. 7. 

REFERENCE 

Alsina 2009, p. 188, no. 56, fig. LVII, 
detail, p. 181. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The plain-weave canvas support has 
been lined with an aqueous adhesive to 
canvas. The peaches were laid in with a 
light color with touches of bright red, 
which, when dry, was toned with a red 
lake glaze to give form and color. A good 
percentage of the red glaze has become 
transparent brown because of photo¬ 
oxidation; consequently, the fruit has 
lost some of the form and color that it 
once had. Many of the leaves appear 
dark or brown, making it likely that 
copper resinate, a transparent bright 
green color that often deteriorates to 
brown, was used. In the background at 
the right, there is a pilaster that is not so 


noticeable today owing to changes in 
condition. The painting has numerous 
strokes of restoration paint, and a tear, 
now repaired, is located at the center of 
the basket. In ultraviolet light the 
surface of the painting fluoresces little 
because of thorough removal of earlier 
varnishes in the past. The present 
varnish is probably synthetic, and it 
created a very even surface on the 
painting. 

7 (back to entry) 

Joseph Parrocel 

(1646, Brignoles-1704, Paris) 

Scenes from A ncient History( 7 ), 

ca. 1690-95 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 

6 x 11 5 /s in. (15.2 x 29.5 cm) each 
Each signed on back (before relining); 
parrocel pinxit 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.5-6 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, nos. 
66,67, ills.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, nos. 6,7, ills.; Omaha 2002-3, 
nos. 5,6, ills. 

REFERENCES 

Delaplanche 2006, pp. 67-68,88 
(erroneously described as “grisailles”), 
206, ill. pp. 88-89. 

3 (back to entry) 

Philippe de Champaigne 

(1602, Brussels-1674, Paris) 

Saint Augustine, ca. 1645 
Oil on canvas, 31 x 24 Vi in. 

(78.7 x 62.2 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.88.177 


PROVENANCE 1 

The artist, posthumous inventory, 1674, 
no. 40, by inheritance to his nephew; 1 
Jean-Baptiste de Champaigne, by 
inheritance to his widow; Genevieve 


182 


Jehan, in 1694, by inheritance to; the 
family of her second husband, Pierre 
Hamelin, 3 by inheritance to; Breda 
family. 4 Possibly Germain-Louis 
Chauvelin (1685-1762), Versailles 5 (sale, 
Paris, 21 June 1762, lot 24, sold for 145 
livres to); 6 Joullain. [Deviers, Paris (sale, 
Paris, Hotel de Bullion, 4 Apr. 1810, lot 
25, “Saint Augustin. Tres-bonne 
production de ce grand maitre,” sold for 
30 frs.)]. 7 Possibly Marcille (estate sale, 
Paris, 16-17 Jan. 1857, lot 419, “Saint 
Augustin,” sold for 25 frs. to); 8 Anguiyot. 
Anonymous (sale, Monaco, Sotheby’s, 27 
Nov. 1986, lot 338, sold together with lot 
339, Philippe de Champaigne, St. Jerome, 
to); [Bruno Meissner, Zurich, sold 1987 
to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 

Port-Royal 1995, no. 17, pp. 98-99. 
REFERENCES 

Grouchy and Guiffrey 1892, p. 184, no. 
40; Dorival 1972, pp. 43-44; Dorival 
1976, vol. 2, pp. 147-48,222-23, as lost; 
Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 
177-80, no. 46, ill.; Dorival 1992, pp. 
11-12, no. 2, ill., as Sterling and Francine 
Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA; 
Saint Augustin 1993, cover ill.; Pericolo 

2002, pp. 156,158-60, ill. p. 157; Smith 

2003, p. 165, ill.; Guiderdoni-Brusle 
2007, p. 5, fig. 4; Smith 2009, p. 145, ill.; 
Cojannot-Le Blanc 2011, p. 183, fig. 4. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting is on a fine, plain-weave 
canvas that has been lined to another 
canvas with an aqueous adhesive. 
Tacking edges have been removed. The 
lining and stretcher are probably early 
twentieth century. The X-radiograph 
revealed a strip of canvas about 
three-quarters of an inch wide sewn to 
the bottom of the larger canvas. The 
strip was probably added by the artist to 
accommodate the texts below the 
saint’s feet. While the two canvases are 
very similar, the ground on the addition 
is denser. The quarter-inch of lining 
canvas that extends from the bottom of 
the painting to the edge of the stretcher 
has been painted. 


The red ground imparts a warm hue to 
the painting. Forms were laid out in 
middle tones blended wet-in-wet, and 
when the paint was dry, the forms were 
developed with highlights and 
translucent shadows. The X-radiograph 
revealed that the artist initially painted 
the saint’s left hand as if it were about 
to turn a page of his book, but he 
changed the position and activity of the 
hand in the final version. 

The painting is in very good condition, 
with only light abrasion of the surface 
and a fine crack pattern in the paint and 
ground layers. Losses from the paint 
that covers the seam between the two 
canvases have been restored, as have a 
few other minor losses scattered over 
the painting. 


NOTES 

1 Dorival 1972, pp. 43-44, no. 62 (print by Poilly), 
mentions numerous copies of the composition 
and identifies sales in which the painting appears 
without measurements. The painting also cannot 
be identified as that sold in Paris, 20 March 1758. 
See note 4 below. 

2 Grouchy and Guiffrey 1892, p. 184, no. 40, “Item, 
un saint Augustin, de la mesme main [dudit 
deffunt, i.e., Philippe de Champaigne], prise 
1001.” Number 39, “Item, un saint Jerome, 
ouvrage dudit deffunt, prise 1001.” 

3 The inventory of Jean-Baptiste de Champaigne, 
made 29 October 1681 at the request of Genevieve 
Jehan, widow of Jean-Baptiste Champaigne, was 
attached to that of her second husband, Pierre 
Hamelin (Grouchy and Guiffrey 1892, pp. i93ff.). 
Philippe de Champaigne’s Saint Augustine does not, 
however, appear in the inventory made after the 
death of Jean-Baptiste, although the painting 
Saint Jerome does. Pierre Hamelin was conseiller 
du roi au Chatelet de Paris. 

4 According to Dorival 1992, p. 12, “Au temoignage 
d’une etiquette collee sur le chassis, a la famille 
Breda via la famille Hamelin dont un membre 
avait epouse la veuve de Jean-Baptiste de 
Champaigne.” That label was not attached to the 
stretcher when it was acquired by LACMA. 
Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991 incorrectly 
includes in the provenance Louis-Joseph Le 
Lorrain (1715-1759), Saint Petersburg (sale, Paris, 
une Salle des Grands Augustins, 20 Mar. 1758, lot 
20, “Un Saint Jerome; Tableau de deux pieds & 
demi de hauteur, sur 2 pieds de large. Ce Tableau 
est d’un tres-beau fini & tres-bien conserve,” sold 
to); Aubry. That painting was sold by Debias- 
Aubry (sale, Paris, 9 Feb. 1773, lot 70a, as “Saint 
Jerome en prieres, par Champagne, connu par la 
belle estampe qu’en a grave Edelinck”) and sold 
again by Conti (sale, Paris, 8 Apr. 1777, lot 201). The 
reference to the engraving by Edelinck (Dorival 
1972, p. 49, no. 77) confirms that it is not an image 
of Saint Augustine mistakenly identified as Saint 
Jerome. No print by Gerard Edelinck (1640-1707) 
of Saint Augustine is recorded by Dorival. 


5 The marquis de Grosbois, who was general 
counselor to parliament and keeper of the seals. 

6 “S. Augustin qui terrasse l’Heresie, aussi par 
Philippe Champagne. Ce pere de l’Eglise est assis, 
le bras gauche appuye sur une table, il a sous ses 
pieds des hommes, dont on ne voit que les bustes 
& les mains; un Serpent s’entrelasse autour d’eux. 
Ce Tableau, qui a des beautes distinguees, est 
peint sur toile colee sur bois, il porte 3 pieds de 
haut, sur 2 pieds 5 pouces de large. Il a ete grave 
par N. Poilly; on lit au bas de l’Estampe: Unde 
ardet inde lucet.” The description of that painting 
as having busts and hands of men beneath the 
feet of Augustine and a serpent wound around 
them does not agree with LACMA’s painting. The 
print by Poilly, however, closely follows the 
painting at LACMA. 

7 The sale was said to have been after the cessation 
of business of “M. Deviers.” According to the 
analysis of the sale in the Getty Provenance Index, 
Sales Contents Database, it appears that the 
majority of the important paintings in the sale 
were retired. 

8 LACMA’s painting has previously been associated 
with lot 417, “Saint Jerome. Grave par Poilly.” It is 
difficult to believe that the two saints could have 
been confused, especially since each print 
properly identifies them. More likely the editor of 
the catalogue entry incorrectly identified the 
author of the print after Saint Jerome, which was 
actually Gerard Edelinck. 


^ (back to entry) 

Charles Poerson 

(1609, Vic-sur-Seille-1667, Paris) 
The Predication of Saint Peter, 1642 
Oil on canvas, 30 x 24 % in. 
(76.2x61.6 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.81.73 


PROVENANCE 

Executed for the administrators of the 
Goldsmiths’ Guild, or the Confraternity 
of Saints Anne and Marcel, Paris 
(probably either Pierre Le Bastier or 
Frangois Le Quint). 1 M. Nouri (estate? 
sale, Paris, 24 Feb. 1785, lot 85, as 
Poerson, sold to): [Dupre]. Private 
collection (sale, London, Sotheby’s, 20 
June 1980, lot 99, as L. de La Hyre, sold 
to); [Luigi Grassi, London, sold 1981 to]; 
LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 

Paris-New York-Chicago 1982, no. 83, 
p. 301, ill. 


183 


Appendix 






















REFERENCES 

Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, p. 72, 
no. 17, ill.; Gustin-Gomez 1993, p. 66, no. 
15; Montreal-Rennes-Montpellier 1993, 
p. 184, fig. 4; Metz 1997, p. 98, no. 27, ill.; 
Paris 2015, no. 1, ill. 3. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting support of fine, plain- 
weave canvas has been lined with an 
aqueous adhesive to another similarly 
fine canvas. Pronounced cusping is 
visible along the top and bottom edges. 
The composition was developed on a 
gray layer, which imparts a cool tonality 
to the image. Infrared reflectography 
(IRR) indicated a painted sketch, 
including shadows. The final painted 
image is very close to the painted sketch. 
Middle tones were brushed over the 
sketch and worked up with scumbles 
and glazes that were blended to a fairly 
smooth finish. The background was 
executed rapidly so that forms were 
overlapped and brush marks were left 
visible, probably the result of the artist 
developing the design as he painted. 

The painting is in good condition, but 
the surface of the shadows and 
transition tones have some abrasion. 

The blue fabrics in the painting have 
some deterioration, which appears 
associated with the blue pigment in use, 
and the shot drapery over the figure 
behind the steps has suffered from 
fading and abrasion. Nearer the center 
of the painting, dark cracks with wide 
intervals are slightly lifted, but along 
the periphery of the painting there is a 
finer crack pattern. Ultraviolet light 
revealed later paint along the edges and 
the upper left corner of the painting, as 
well as restorations on Saint Peter’s 
raised blue sleeve. Beneath the present 
surface coating, there are scattered 
remnants of an old natural resin 
varnish. 

NOTE 

1 Notter 1999, p. 14, notes the confusion about the 
identity of the specific administrators. The gifts 
were presented on May first of each year, but a 
new election took place on Ascension Day (the 
Thursday before Easter Sunday), when two other 
administrators were promoted. It was they, 
therefore, who presided over placing the painting 
on the column. 


10 (back to entry) 


Jean-Baptiste Tuby I 

(1635, Rome-1700, Paris) 

Diana with a Stag and a Dog, 1687 
Terracotta, 10 14 x 16 7 /s x 8 % in. 

(26 x 42.9 x 21 cm) 

Inscribed and dated on base: Tubifit 1687 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.78.77 


PROVENANCE 

Andre Fetrot, Paris. [Alain Moatti, Paris]. 
REFERENCES 

Los Angeles 1987, p. 169, ill.; Souchal 
1987, p. 360, no. 69, ill. p. 359; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, pp. 51-53, no. 11, 
ill. 


11 (back to entry) 

Simon Vouet 

(1590-1649, Paris) 

Two modelli/br an Altarpiece 
in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Rome, 1625 
Oil on canvas, 16 x 25 14 in. 

(40.6 x 61.6 cm) each 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.1-2 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1972, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 
92, ilk; Rome 1991, nos. 17,18; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, nos. 1,2, 
ills.; New York 1998-99; Omaha 2002-3, 
nos. 1,2, ills.; Nantes-Besangon 2008-9, 
pp. 35,156-57, no. 41b, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Schleier 1972, nos. 43,44, ills.; Cuzin 
1987, p. 360; Ferrari 1990, p. 260, fig. 

P. 258; Rice 1997, pp. 217,219, figs. 114, 

115, p. 430; Parma-Naples-Rome 2001-2, 
p. 348; Ajaccio 2002, p. 355; Nancy-Caen 
2007, p. 42; Gash 2009, p. 70; 

Malgouyres 2011, pp. 78-80, figs. 5,6. 


12 (back to entry) 

Simon Vouet 

(1590-1649, Paris) 

Virginia da Vezzo, the Artist’s Wife, 

as the Magdalen, ca. 1627 

Oil on canvas, 40 x 31 in. (101.6 x 78.74 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.83.201 


PROVENANCE 

(Possibly sale, London, Foster, 15 Nov. 
1836, “Portrait of a Lady of Quality in 
the figure of a Magdalen,” sold for £1.3 
to); 1 Golding. “Alderman” T. Holroyd, ca. 
i860. 2 Unidentified religious institution, 
England (sale, Lancaster). 3 London art 
market, 1982. [Trafalgar Galleries, 
London, sold 1983 to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

London 1983, no. 3; Nantes-Besangon 
2008-9, P-167, no. 51, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Brejon de Lavergnee 1982, fig. 34; 
“Round the Galleries” 1983, p. 449, fig. 1; 
“Acquisitions” 1985, p. 492, fig. 86; 

Mosco 1986, p. 231; Conisbee, Levkoff, 
and Rand 1991, pp. 122-24, no. 31, ilk; 

Los Angeles 2006, p. 44, ilk 46; Schleier 
2007, n.p., detail and fig. 20; Loire 2011, 
p. 218. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting is on a plain-weave canvas, 
which was lined with wax adhesive to 
canvas. Stretcher marks from an earlier 
stretcher are visible near the edges of 
the painting. The canvas was prepared 
with a dark red-brown ground, which 
affects the tonality of the painting. It 
appears that the design was indicated 
on the ground with a thin, dark paint. 
There is a cool, light layer of paint 
beneath the flesh tone that prevents the 
dark ground from affecting the subtle 
flesh tones.The flesh was painted with a 
range of middle tones in one or two 
layers wet-in-wet. Thin glazes were 
applied over the middle tones after they 
had dried. The flesh has relatively 
subtle transitions and a smooth surface. 
Reserves were left on the woman’s chest 
for the two braids of hair. The shadows 
of the flesh are a dark ocher hue. In 
contrast, the local color of the clothing 


184 


is textured by long and short brush¬ 
strokes that follow forms. Dark opaque 
paints and glazes created the deeper 
shadows. In the landscape open 
brushwork and thin passages of paint 
are penetrated by the ground color, 
which is clearly visible in a number of 
areas. However, the cloudy blue sky 
may have a dark underlayer meant to 
intensify the colors and replicate an airy 
atmosphere. 

The artist left reserves for forms in 
many cases, but he also was not averse 
to painting form over form. For 
example, the infrared photograph 
shows that the upper part of the orange 
cape was painted over the foliage of the 
bush, which was painted over the stones 
behind the woman. Moreover, it reveals 
a rectangular form below the woman’s 
left hand, which is inexplicable. In 
addition, in normal light some 
overlapping of forms is visible. For 
example, it is clear that the ointment jar 
was painted over the figure’s left arm 
and drapery. 

Abrasion of paint, along with the 
infusion of wax for the lining, increased 
the transparency of the paint layers, 
which amplifies the visibility of the 
warm tonality from the ground. The 
blue color of the drape has deteriorated, 
owing to the pigments and the medium, 
and it has become more transparent 
with age. The paint layers have a wide 
interval crack pattern, which, although 
dark, is not so noticeable today because 
of the pressure that was used during 
the lining process to flatten paint that 
had lifted along the cracks. The 
painting was last cleaned by Robert 
Shepherd, and it was revarnished in 
1983 with Keton Resin N. 

NOTES 

1 Although the sale price is remarkably low, 
LACMA’s painting is the only known portrait like 
M ary Magdalen by Vouet. The location of the sale in 
London twenty-four years before it was known to 
be in Holroyd’s London collection further 
suggests that the reference may be to this 
painting. 


2 According to a letter dated 11 November 1983 from 
R. Cohen, Trafalgar Galleries: “When the painting 
first came to us it bore a large gilt plaque 
inscribed: “Presented by Alderman T. Holroyd. 
The plaque has been mislaid ... but must, I 
suppose, have been datable around 1860-80.” 
Vouet object file, Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA. 

3 According to a letter dated 9 November 1983 from 
R. Cohen, Trafalgar Galleries: “The picture was 
originally acquired in an auction in a small town 
in Lancashire and we understand that it had 
previously belonged to a religious institution for 
at least a hundred years. It was later acquired by a 
dealer friend of ours who approached us about it.” 
Vouet object file, Department of European 
Painting and Sculpture, LACMA. 


13 (back to entry) 

Jacques-Antoine Beaufort 

(1721, Paris-1784, Rueil) 

The Oath of Brutus, ca. 1771 
Oil on canvas, 25 7 /s x 31 Vs in. 

(65.7 x 80.3 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.18 


PROVENANCE 

Barnett Hollander, London, in 1970. 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 

28, ilk; Toledo-Chicago-Ottawa 1975-76, 
no. 5, ilk; Albuquerque 1980, no. 2, ilk; 
Rochester-New Brunswick-Atlanta 
1987-88, no. 1; Omaha 2002-3, no. 22, ilk 

REFERENCES 

Du Pont de Nemours 1908, p. 88; 
Rosenblum 1961, p. 12 (attributed to 
unknown artist); Seznec and Adhemar 
1957-67, vol. 4, p. 146, fig. 83 (attributed 
to Beaufort); Lee 1969, pp. 360-63,366 
(as a copy of Beaufort’s Salon painting, 
possibly by David); Rosenberg and 
Schnapper 1970, p. 760 (as Beaufort); 
Rosenblum 1970, p. 273, fig. 6 
(attributed to an unknown artist); 
London 1972, under no. 20; Brookner 
1980, p. 77, fig. 38 (as possibly by 
Jacques-Louis David); Los Angeles 
2006-7. 


14 (back to entry) 

Jean-Simon Berthelemy 

(1743, Laon-1811, Paris) 

A Dying Gladiator, 1773 
Oil on canvas, 40 14 x 53 Vz in. 

(102 x 135.9 cm) 

Signed and dated upper left: 
Berthelemy /17/3 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.83.169 


PROVENANCE 

Executed at the French Academy in 
Rome (sent to Paris on 7 Sept. 1774). 
Possibly Rome, Abbe Terray, 
Surintendant des Batiments du Roi. 
Possibly Paris (sale, Paris, Berthelemy 
sale, Olivier, 8 Apr. 1811, lot 15). Private 
collection. Walter P. Chrysler, Jr. 
(1909-1988), New York. [Maurice 
Segoura, New York, sold 1983 to]; 
LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 

Probably Salon of 1777, no. 206. 

REFERENCES 

Deloynes 1881, vol. 10, no. 181, p. 899, vol. 
49, no. 1333, p. 803; Bellier de la 
Chavignerie and Auvray 1882-87, vol. 1 
(1882), p. 78; Dacier 1909-21, vol. 2 (1910), 
no. 4; Bardon 1963, p. 218; Voile 1979, pp. 
31-32, nos. 34-35 (?)> 43 ; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, no. 30, pp. 
119-21, ilk 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting is on canvas mounted on a 
stretcher. The dark-colored cracks in the 
paint layers indicate that the ground or 
an underlayer has a gray or brownish 
color, which is slightly visible in thinly 
painted areas. The artist seems to have 
established the composition with dark 
brown paint. 

The figure and drape were laid in with 
middle tones blended wet-in-wet; thick 
paint has brush marks and low impasto. 
Shadows were achieved with glazes. 

The architecture at the left was painted 
with thin paint applications on top of 
the dark vegetation. 


185 


Appendix 






















Minor changes or adjustments can be 
discerned in some areas. For example, 
the edges of the red cloth were reposi¬ 
tioned a number of times. 

The paint and varnish have an overall 
crack pattern. Surface abrasion is visible 
throughout the painting, but it is most 
noticeable in the drapery’s red glazing. 
The foliage in the background might 
have darkened. 

15 (back to entry) 

Louis-Leopold Boilly 

(1761, La Bassee-1845, Paris) 

Profile of a Young Woman’s Head, 

ca. 1794 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 10 14 x 8 % in. 
(25.7x22.2 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.33 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 2, 
ill.; American Federations of Arts 
1994-95, no. 81, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
38, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Lille 1988-89, p. 118, ill.; Fort Worth- 
Washington 1995-96, p. 146; Lille 
2011-12, p. 204 n. 1. 

(back to entry) 

Louis-Leopold Boilly 

(1761, La Bassee-1845, Paris) 

View of a Lake, 1797 

Oil on canvas, 9 x 12 in. (22.9 x 30.5 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: L. Boilly 1797 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.32 


PROVENANCE 

John Tillotson (sale, London, Christie’s, 
17 Dec. 1985, lot 26). Andrew S. Ciecha¬ 
nowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 1973, 
sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Arts Council of Great Britain 1980-81, 
no. 41; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 80, ill.; Los Angeles 2001; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 37; Los Angeles 
2008-9; Lille 2011-12, no. 100, p. 161, ill. 

17 (back to entry) 

Francois Boucher 

(1703-1770, Paris) 

The Death ofMeleager, ca. 1727 
Oil on canvas, 20 J 4 x 26 J 4 in. 
(51.1x66.7 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.12 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 12 (attr. to 
Dandre-Bardon); Tokyo-Osaka- 
Hokkaido-Yokohama 1990, no. 3, ill. p. 
37; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 17, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
14, ill. 

REFERENCE 

New York-Detroit-Paris 1986-87, p. 107, 
fig. 81. 

(back to entry) 

Francois Boucher 

(1703-1770, Paris) 

Monument to Mignard, ca. 1743 
Oil on canvas, 28 J 4 x 22 5 /s in. 
(72.4x57.5 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.11 


PROVENANCE 

Pierre-Hippolyte Lemoyne (1748-1828) 1 
(estate sale, Paris, Hotel Boullion 
[Duchesne Aine], 19-22 May 1828, lot 95, 
“Divers Maitres: Tombeau de Mignard, 
peint en grisaille, d’apres la sculpture 
de J-B Lemoyne, telle qu’elle etait dans 
1 ’eglise de Jacobins de la rue St. Honore. 
Hauteur 27 pouces, Largeur 21 pouces,” 
sold for 6 frs., 10 sous). 2 Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 3, 
ill.; Tokyo-Osaka-Hokkaido-Yokohama 
1990, no. 15, ill.; American Federation of 
Arts 1994-95, no. 16, ill.; Los Angeles 
2001; Omaha 2002-3, no. 15, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Ananoff and Wildenstein 1976, vol. 1, p. 
228, no. 99, fig. 392; Ananoff and 
Wildenstein 1980, p. 92, no. 99; 
Wintermute 1985, p. 127, fig. 3; Jeromack 
2002, pp. 92-93, ill. 

NOTES 

1 Pierre-Hippolyte Lemoyne, an architect, was the 
son of Jean-Bap tiste Lemoyne, the sculptor of the 
monument. The drawing was, thus, most likely 
passed directly from the father to the son. 

2 It is intriguing that the catalogue does not 
identify Boucher as the artist. The catalogue did 
include two paintings en camaieu by Boucher: 

“67. Triomphede Venus, esquisse peinte en camaieu. 
Cette toile a ete contre-collee, larg, 33 p., haut, 

18 p.; 68. Venus venantprier Vulcan deforger des armes 
pourEnee; esquisse peinte en camaieu. Larg. 16 p., 
haut 14 p.” 


19 (back to entry) 


Nicolas-Guy Brenet 

(1728-1792, Paris) 

Aetlira Showing Her Son Theseus 
the Place Where His Father 
Had Hidden His Arms, 1768 
Oil on canvas, 19% x 23 14 in. 

(50.2 x59.7 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.21 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 4, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 35, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, 
no. 25, ill. 


REFERENCES 

Montaiglon 1875-92, vol. 7 (1886), p. 377; 
Sandoz 1979, p. 93; Paris 1984-85, p. 144; 
Los Angeles 2006, p. 69. 


186 


20 (back to entry) 

Jean-Simeon Chardin 

(1699-1779, Paris) 

Soap Bubbles, probably after 1739 
Oil on canvas, 23% x 28 3 A in. 

(60 x 73 cm) 

Signed lower right: J. S. chardin 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.79.251 


PROVENANCE 

(Possibly Paris, Dulac Sale, 6 Apr. 1801). 
Possibly Thomas de Masclary (1755— 
1836), Montpellier, by descent to his 
daughter; Adele d’Alichoux (1794-1818), 
by descent to her daughter; Julie 
d’Alichoux de Senegra (d. 1840), by 
inheritance to her widower; Alexandre 
Leonce Tapie de Celeyran (1807-1847), 
to his second wife; Louise d’lmbert du 
Bose (1815-1905), by descent to; Adele 
Zoe Tapie de Celeyran (1841-1930), 
married in 1863 to Alphonse Charles de 
Toulouse Lautrec. [Manzi, Joyant & Cie, 
Paris]. (Sale, Paris, Ader, Picard, and 
Tajan, Hotel Drouot, 28 Feb. 1973, lot 90 
[as copy]). [Claus Virch, Paris, sold 1979 
to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Los Angeles-New York-Washington 
1990-91, ill.; Paris-Diisseldorf-London- 
New York 1999-2000 (Paris and 
Diisseldorf only), no. 43, ill.; Los Angeles 
2001-2, no. 95, pp. 194-97, ilk p-195; 
Ferrara-Madrid 2010-11, no. 32, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Wildenstein 1933, nos. 137,138 (as lost); 
Wildenstein 1963, no. 78 (as lost); 
Conisbee 1986, pp. 133,136; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, no. 13, pp. 58-61, 
ill.; Roland Michel 1994, pp. 44,46,126, 
134 , 193 , 233 nn. 14 ; 15; Rosenberg and 
Temperini 1999, no. 98B; Herbert 2001, 
pp. 251-52; Los Angeles 2006, p. 66, ill. 
76; Conisbee 2009. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 1 

The painting now has its original 
format, but at one time it had been 
reduced in size to 22 by 23 inches. The 
support, a plain-weave, medium-weight 
linen, is lined with an aqueous adhesive 
to canvas. The X-radiograph revealed 
creases with paint loss and holes where 


the painting had been folded over a 
smaller stretcher. The composition had 
been reduced by three inches on the 
right side and three-quarters of an inch 
on each of the other sides. The ground, 
a type found in other works by the artist, 
consists of a red ocher layer covered 
with a light gray-brown layer. The artist 
laid out the main design with a dark 
brownish paint on the light gray layer. 

There are three autograph versions of 
this subject. The outline and size of the 
boy blowing bubbles, the glass of soap, 
and the upper head of a youth are 
nearly identical in each version, 
although the dimensions and sur¬ 
rounding scenery of the paintings differ 
in some aspects. It is not known how 
the artist transferred the same design to 
each painting, but it has been conjec¬ 
tured that he used chalk, which would 
have become invisible in the oil paint. 

The hues in the painting are mixtures 
of several pigments in varying propor¬ 
tions to produce a range of tones. The 
flesh colors contain vermilion, yellow 
ocher, and white and possibly an 
organic yellow. Most of the paint 
contains chalk, which becomes more 
translucent in oil, and lead white. The 
artist applied middle tones directly 
wet-in-wet in several layers working 
from dark to light. The dark initial 
sketch shows through thinly applied 
local color to create transitions from 
middle tones to dark shadows. Frothy 
white impasto on the bubble blower’s 
forehead and on the glass of soap has a 
greater proportion of chalk to medium 
to bulk up the paint. On the surfaces of 
the flesh, coat, and hair there are 
colorful pastel strokes. The artist 
applied translucent green paint that 
contains a mixture of black, yellow, and 
white pigments for the background 
around the initial dark brown sketch of 
the composition. When the painting 
was near completion, he scumbled a 
light green color over the translucent 
green layer, and he blended it with the 
still-wet outlines of the forms for a 
fuzzy effect. The architecture, small 
child, and bubble were summarily and 
thinly painted. 


The paint film has a large crack pattern. 
The perimeter of the painting that had 
been turned over has numerous losses, 
now restored. Scattered abrasion in the 
background has been toned. There are 
only scattered losses and restoration in 
the main part of the picture. The 
synthetic varnish on the painting has 
discolored to some degree, and 
restorations are discoloring. 

NOTE 

1 For more on this subject, see Joseph Fronek, “The 
Materials and Technique of the Los Angeles Soap 
Bubbles in Conisbee 1990, pp. 23-25; and William 
Leisher, J. L Greaves, and Ross Merrill, unpub¬ 
lished lectures, reports, and notes (Chardin object 
file, Department of Paintings Conservation, 
LACMA). 

21 (back to entry) 

Jean-Baptiste Deshays 

(1729, Rouen-1765, Paris) 

Scene from the Martyrdom of Saint 
Andrew (Saint Andrew, Brought by 
His Tormentors, Refuses to Worship 
the Pagan Gods), 1758 
Oil on canvas, 21% x 11% in. 

(54.3 x 29.8 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.19 


PROVENANCE 

(Sale, Paris, Pierre Remy, 26 Mar. 1765, 
“Catalogue de dessins, tableaux, et 
estampes apres le deces de M. Deshays,” 
lot 105, as Saint Andre adorant la croix sur 
laquelle il doitetre martyrise, with possibly 
lot 107, sold for 49 livres 1 sol to); Abbe 
Gruel (or Gruelle). (Sale, Paris, Basan, 5 
Nov. 1781, “Catalogue de tableaux, 
dessins et estampes des plus grands mais- 
tres des trois ecoles italienne, flamande 
et frangaise, provenans du cabinet de 
M.***,” lot 44. One of two sketches sold 
as “The Martyrdoms of St. Lawrence 
and St. Andrew).” Marie Bigot de 
Graveron, Presidente de Bandeville (sale, 
Paris, Pierre Remy, 3 Dec. 1787, lot 62, 
sold for 46 livres 19 sols to); 1 “Glamont” 
(or “Hamont” or “Blamont”). Art 
market, Paris; Andrew S. 

Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1973 ; sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


187 


Appendix 
























EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 10, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 29, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
23, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Sandoz 1977, p. 78; Bancel 2008, pp. 105- 
6, p. 33, ill. pp. 62 and 105. 

NOTE 

1 The Bandeville sale lists a pair of paintings: “Deux 
Esquisses differement composees du Martyr de 
Saint Andre, Etudes faites pour les tableaux en 
grand qui sont a Saint Andre de Rouen; elles sont 
peintes sur toile & portent chaque 19 pouces et 6 
lines de haut sur 10 pouces de large.” It seems 
likely that the paintings were bought as a pair 
from the Deshays sale and kept together as a pair 
through at least this sale. 

22 (back to entry) 

Alcxandrc-F rancois 
Desportes 

(1661, Champigneulles-1743, Paris) 

Dog Pointing Partridges 
in a Landscape, 1719 

Oil on canvas, 44 x 56% in. (112 x 144 cm) 
Signed and dated lower left: Desportes 
1/19 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
AC1993.39.1 


PROVENANCE 

The family of the prince de Ligne, 1 
possibly since the early 18th century, 
sold 1993 through Banque Paribas to; 
LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 

Mexico City 1994, no. 71, p. 132, ill. 
p. 106. 

REFERENCE 

Lastic and Jacky 2010, no. P621, pp. 143, 
145 ,165- 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The painting is on a medium-weight, 
plain-weave canvas that has been lined 
with an aqueous adhesive to another 
canvas. The original canvas has cusping 
on all sides. Less than one inch of the 
top edge of the painting was folded over 
the strainer at one time, probably to 
mitigate sagging. Later, when the 


painting was lined, the top edge was 
regained, and the tacking margin was 
flattened to be partially incorporated 
into the picture plane. Stretcher bar 
marks from a former stretcher exist on 
all sides and along the vertical center of 
the painting. 

The canvas has a thin white ground. A 
few lines in a dark color made with 
brush and fluid paint are on the ground, 
but the infrared photograph revealed 
no underdrawing and no significant 
artist’s changes. Thin, fluid paint was 
used to lay in the composition. The 
imagery was developed with opaque 
paint of a creamy consistency applied in 
various thicknesses and with dark 
medium-rich paints. Paint application 
was wet-in-wet and wet-over-dry. The 
artist used hatching and dabs and small 
dots of paint to develop texture and 
detail for the flora and fauna. The 
flowers in the right foreground and the 
tree at the far right were painted over 
the already completed landscape. 

The painting is in good condition. Light 
abrasion and scattered small losses have 
been restored. Later repaint is visible 
along the top edge where the canvas is 
distorted. There is a pattern of cracks 
throughout the paint layer that 
includes occasional spiral and promi¬ 
nent linear cracks, and minute losses of 
paint exist at the intersections of the 
cracks. The natural resin varnish has 
yellowed slightly. 

NOTE 

1 It is unknown when the painting entered the 
collection of the de Ligne family, one of the oldest 
noble families in Belgium, whose principal 
residence since 1394 was the castle at Beloeil. In 
the eighteenth century, Claude Lamoral II 
(1685-1766), 6th prince de Ligne, transformed the 
fortified castle into a luxurious country estate. 
Inspired by Louis XIV’s Versailles, it was elegantly 
furnished as a French chateau, housing the 
family’s art collection. It is therefore possible that 
Desportes’s painting entered the family’s 
collection at that time, possibly even acquired 
directly from the internationally admired artist. 


23 (back to entry) 

Gabriel-Francois Doyen 

(1726, Paris-1806, Saint Petersburg) 

The Russian Nobility Offering the 
Imperial Princes to Minerva, ca. 1794 
Oil on canvas, 37% x 28 in. 

(94.9 x 71.1 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.20 


PROVENANCE 

Paul Delaroff (1852-1913), Saint 
Petersburg. Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki 
(1924-2015), London, by 1973, sold 2000 
to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 13, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 31, ill.; Omaha 2022-3, no. 
24, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Los Angeles 2006, p. 69. 

24 (back to entry) 

Louis Galloche 

(1670-1761, Paris) 

Saint Martin Sharing 

His Coat with a Beggar, ca. 1737 

Oil on canvas, 15% x 10J4 in. 

(39.7 x 26.4 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.7 

Louis Galloche 

(1670-1761, Paris) 

Saint Martin Kneeling in Front 
of an Eremitic Monk, ca. 1737 
Oil on canvas, 15% x 10 3 /s in. 

(39.7x26.4 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.8 


PROVENANCE 

[Galerie Joseph Hahn, Paris, by 1972]. 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1972, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


188 


EXHIBITIONS 

Paris 1972, nos. 10,11, ills.; Houston and 
other cities 1973-75, nos. 11,12, ills.; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
nos. 9,10, ills.; Omaha 2002-3, nos. 7, 8, 
ills. 


25 (back to entry) 


Noel Halle 

(1711-1781, Paris) 

Saint Anne Revealing to the Virgin 
the Prophecy of Isaiah, ca. 1749 
Oil on canvas, 24% x 16 hi in. 

(62.5 x 41.3 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.16 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 32, ill.; 
Rochester-New Brunswick-Atlanta 
1987-88, no. 27, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 22, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 20, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Willk-Brocard 1995, pp. 374-75, no. 34, 
ill.; Los Angeles 2006, no. 77, ill. 


20 (back to entry) 

Jean-Antoine Houdon 

(1741, Versailles-1828, Paris) 

Seated Voltaire, ca. 1779-before 1828 
Plaster with metal supports, 
traces of dark greenish-blue paint, 
54 x 28 x 37 in. (137.2 x 71.1 x 94 cm) 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2004.5 


PROVENANCE 

Melchior, marquis de Polignac (1880- 
1950), Chateau Pommery (near Rheims). 
(Sale, Monaco, Sotheby’s, Bel 
Ameublement, 21 Feb. 1988, lot 620, to); 
[Wildenstein & Co., Inc., New York, sold 
2004 to]; LACMA. 


REFERENCES 

Article signed J[ason] E. K[aufman], Art 
Newspaper, no. 145 (Mar. 2004); article 
signed Christopher Knight, Los Angeles 
Times, 5 Mar. 2004; Los Angeles Times, 4 
Apr. 2004, p. E55; “100 Top Treasures,” 
Art and Antiques, Nov. 2004, p. 69; Baillio 
2005, p. 66, fig. 97, p. 95, no. 97; Los 
Angeles 2006, pp. 70-72, ill. 83. 

27 (back to entry) 

JeanJouvenet 

(1644, Rouen-1717, Paris) 

The Raising of Lazarus, ca. 1711 
Oil on canvas, 39 Vz x 63 14 in. 
(99.4x161.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.4 


PROVENANCE 

Possibly [Alexander Stuart?] 1 (sale, 
London, Christies, 25-26 Feb. 1788, lot 
97, “Jouvenet, The Raising of Lazarus,” 
sold for £4.4 to); Parsons. Possibly 
anonymous (sale, Paris, Clisorius, 21 Nov. 
1808, lot 84, as “Jouvenet, Un tableau, 
esquisse avancee, Lazare faisant enterer 
les morts”). Probably Thomas Theodoor 
Cremer (1742-1815), Rotterdam (sale, 
Rotterdam, Leen, 16 Apr. 1816, lot 48: 

“J. Jouvenet, De opwekking van Lazarus. 
Eene uitvoerige schets van het stuk, 

’t welk zich in de kerk van St. Martin te 
Parijs bevind. Bekend uit de prent 
gegraveerd door Audran. Doek, Hoog 
36, Breed 60 duimen”);* Herriston. 
Possibly Van Meldert (sale, Mechelen, 
Belgium, Elst, 17 May 1837, lot 140, “Jean 
Jouvenet, Tres belle esquisse represen- 
tent la resurrection de Lazarre,” sold for 
5 frs. to); Van Bredael. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1994, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 5, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 22, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Schnapper 1974, p. 213 (possibly the 
preliminary sketch sold in Paris 29 Mar. 
1763, no. 54, mentioned in reference to 
the painting at the Louvre); Schnapper 
and Gouzi 2010, p. 178, ill. p. 276. 


NOTES 

1 According to the notes of the sale cited in the 
Getty Provenance Index, Sales Contents Database, 
the name of the seller of the painting in Christie’s 
original copy is illegible. The sale was called 
“Alexander Stuart.” 

2 “T he Raising of Lazarus. A detailed sketch of the 
piece found in the church of Saint Martin in Paris. 
Known by the print engraved by Audran. Canvas, 
36 x 60 thumbs, sold for fl. 80.” Jean Audran’s 
print was published in Landon 1803-20, vol. 9 
(1809), pi. 1. 

(back to entry) 

Pierre Legros II 

(1666, Paris-1719, Rome) 

Saint Thomas, 1703-4 
Terracotta, 27% x 18 14 x 10% in. 
(69.5x47x27.3 cm) 

Purchased with funds provided by William 
Randolph Hearst, The Ahmanson Foundation, 
Chandis Securities Company, B. Gerald Cantor, 
Camilla Chandler Frost, Anna Bing Arnold, an 
anonymous donor, Duveen Brothers, Inc., Mr. and 
Mrs. William Preston Harrison, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre 
Sicard, Colonel and Mrs. George J. Dennis, and Julia 
Off by exchange 84.1 


PROVENANCE 

[Cyril Humphris, London, sold 1984 to]; 
LACMA. 

REFERENCES 

Schaefer 1986, pp. 415-16, fig. 3; 
Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991, no. 32, 
pp. 125-27, ill.; Souchal 1993, no. 24, p. 
147, ill.; Bissell 1997, p. 84, fig. 50; Rome 
2005, no. 46, p. 162, ill. p. 163. 

29 (back to entry) 

Francois Lemoyne 

(1688-1737, Paris) 

Diana and Callisto, ca. 1725-28 
Oil on canvas, 29 14 x 37 in. (76 x 95 cm) 
Signed and dated lower right 
on the rocks: F. Lemoyne 172(7 or3] 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.72 


PROVENANCE 

Bought by an English collector ca. 1748. 
Nathaniel Webb (1725-1786), by 1767. 
Richard Hulse (ca. 1725-1803) (sale, 
London, Christie’s, 22 Mar. 1806, lot 23, 
sold to); Colonel Thornton. Mrs. 
Campbell Johnson (sale, London, 
Sotheby’s, 21 Feb. 1945, lot 135, sold to); 


189 


Appendix 






























Mrs. M. G. Wengraf, by descent in 1965 
to; [Alex Wengraf, London, sold 2000 
to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

London 1954-55, no. 467; Paris- 
Philadelphia-Fort Worth 1991-92, pp. 
250-55, no. 24, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Dacier 1909-21, pt. 10, vol. 5 (1919), p. 29, 
no. 82; Fontaine 1910, p. 65; Dimier 
1928-30, vol. 2 (1930), p. 90, no. 4; 
Bordeaux 1984, pp. 105-6, no. 60, ill. 
pi. IV; Fredericksen 1988-90, vol. 2 
(1990), pt. 1, p. 536; Los Angeles 2006, 
pp. 63, ill. 71. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting’s support is a plain-weave 
canvas that has been lined to canvas. 
Study of the surface of the painting 
suggests either that the ground may be 
dark gray or that a dark imprimatura is 
present. Dark gray is visible in all of the 
cracks and in various thinly painted 
areas. Vignettes that appear most bright 
in intensity may have an underlayer of a 
light color. 

The artist painted wet-in-wet and over 
dry paint, and he made use of dark 
transparent paint and scumbles. The 
blue of the thickly painted sky was 
applied early in the process, and then 
the clouds, the upper parts of the trees, 
and the leftmost part of the cliffs were 
painted. The figures were brushed in 
with flesh tones, and thin, warm, dark 
paint was applied for shadows. A thin, 
medium-gray paint was applied over 
painted figures to place them into a 
softly shaded space, as is the case for the 
two nymphs to the left of Diana. The 
couple in the middle ground was thinly 
painted in muted tones over the 
partially completed landscape. The sky 
and distant landscape at the center of 
the picture are confused by possible 
pentimenti that are now visible because 
of removal of the artist’s overpaint and/ 
or growing transparency of the oils. The 
low branch of the large tree trunk that 
projects into the sky just above the 
horizon may have been overpainted by 
the artist, but it has become visible. In 
the same general area, a faint gray 
figure, which is about half the size of 


the figures in the middle distance, faces 
to the right, and a much smaller male 
figure strides to the right in the far 
distance. The latter figure consists of 
only several strokes of white paint. 
Which of the various forms and marks 
were meant to be visible in the final 
painting is not clear. In addition, 
adjustments of the more prominent 
figures have become visible. Callisto’s 
right arm and the right leg of the 
nymph behind her were initially farther 
to their right. The inscription below 
Diana’s feet was painted with a fine 
brush and dark reddish paint. 

The surface retains a sense of paint 
texture and contrasting thicknesses of 
paint. Study of the surface with 
ultraviolet light revealed restorations 
scattered throughout the picture; 
nevertheless, the main figures and 
elements of the landscape have been 
preserved. The nymph to the left of 
Diana has more restoration than any of 
the other figures. A restoration about 
two inches in diameter is located in the 
sky in the center of the image. General 
surface abrasion has been toned in 
many areas. The inscription is difficult 
to read because of abrasion and 
reinforcement (especially of the date) 
and overlaying remnants of a discolored 
older varnish that fluoresces yellow in 
ultraviolet light. The painting was last 
restored in the 1970s by Joseph 
Shepherd. The period frame was 
restored by Paul Levy. 


30 (back to entry) 


Guillaume Lethiere 

(1762, Sainte-Anne, 
Guadeloupe-1832, Paris) 

T he Death of Virginia, ca. i8oo(?) 
Oil on canvas, 19 Vi x 30 in. 

(49.5 x 76.2 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.35 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 42; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 83, ill.; 
Los Angeles 2001; Omaha 2002-3, no. 39, 
ill. 

REFERENCES 

(Possibly) Sandoz 1975, pp. 31-32, no. 

14b, as private collection, Paris; 

Marandel 1980, pp. 15-16, fig. 11; 

Serullaz 2005, pp. 76,82 n. 5. 

31 (back to entry) 

Carle van Loo 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

Theseus Taming the Bull of Marathon, 

ca. 1730 

Oil on canvas, 26 x 58 in. (66 x 147.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.15 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 81, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 20, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
17, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Nice-Clermond-Ferrand-Nancy 1977, no. 
33; New York-New Orleans-Columbus 
1985-86, p. 139, no. 127. 

32 (back to entry) 

Carle van Loo 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

The Three Graces, ca. 1763 
Oil on canvas, 23 x 18 Vs in. 

(58.4x46 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.14 


PROVENANCE 

Chevalier de Damery (aka Jean-Louis- 
Antoine, le Valliant de Damery, 
1723-1803), Paris, by 1769 (estate sale, 
Paris, 26-27 Brumaire, An XII [18-19 
Nov. 1803], lot 22, sold together with lot 
23 for 11 frs. 15 to); 1 [Guy Irlande, Paris]. 
Marquis de Salamanca (seal with arms 


190 


of the family on stretcher). 2 Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 84, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 1994- 
95, no. 19, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 18, ill.; 
Tours-Portland 2008-9, PP-190-91, no. 
49, ilk; Montpellier-Lausanne 2013-14, 
pp. 20,71,220, ill. p. 221, p. 325, no. 36. 

REFERENCES 

Lastic 1974, pp. 194-96, ill. p. 197, fig-1; 
Nice-Clermond-Ferrand-Nancy 1977, no. 
177; Paris 1984-85, p. 376, under no. 111; 
Wintermute 1985, p. 139, no. 125. 

NOTES 

1 Called “un sujet de Graces.” Lot 22 also included 
sketches by Loo, Suzanne & les Vieillards and 
Saint-Pierre. 

2 Probably Jose de Salamanca (1811-1883), Madrid, a 
Spanish nobleman, politician, and businessman, 
who served as finance minister of Spain and was 
responsible for the expansion of Madrid. He was 
forced into exile at various points in his career, 
during which time he resided in Paris. Sales from 
his collection took place in Paris on 3-6 June 1867 
(Pillet) and 25-26 January 1875 (Drouot), and 
others. Neither this painting nor any other 
French paintings were in the sales, which 
included only Spanish, Italian, Flemish, and 
Dutch paintings. 

33 (back to entry) 

Carle van Loo 

(1705, Nice-1765, Paris) 

The Victory of Alexander 
overKingPorus, ca. 1738 
Oil on canvas, 25 7 /s x 36 in. 

(65.7x91.4 cm) 

Signed lower left: Carlo Vanloo 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.13 


PROVENANCE 

H. D. Molesworth, London, by 1968; 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

London 1968, no. 447; Albuquerque 
1980, no. 65, ill.; American Federation of 
Arts 1994-95, no. 18, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, 
no. 17, ill. 


REFERENCES 

Rosenberg 1969, p. 99; Nice-Clermond- 
Ferrand-Nancy 1977, no. 64; New 
York-New Orleans-Columbus 1985, p. 
139, no. 126; Los Angeles 2006, p. 69. 


34 (back to entry) 


Francois-Guillaume 

Menageot 

(1744, London-1816, Paris) 

The Death ofLeonardo da Vinci 
in the Arms of Francois I, ca. 1781 
Oil on canvas, 21% x 21% in. 
(54.3 x 54.9 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.25 


PROVENANCE 

Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson (1767- 
1824), Paris (estate sale, Paris, 11-25 Apr. 
1825, lot 414). Frangois Hippolyte 
Walferdin (1795-1880), Paris (estate sale, 
Paris, 12-16 Apr. 1880, lot 146, sold for 
145 frs. to); Haro; 1 Henri Haro (1855- 
1911), Paris (estate sale, Paris, 18-20 Mar. 
1912, lot 195, sold for 150 frs.). (Louis?) 
Mairet collection, Paris, before 1935. 
Private collection, Geneva. M. J. Tully, 
London, acquired in 1976 (sale. New 
York, Christie’s, 15 Jan. 1986, lot 81, sold 
to); Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924- 
2015), London, by 1987-88, sold 2000 to; 
LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Rochester-New Brunswick-Atlanta 
1987-88, no. 39, p. 130, ill. p. 131; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 46, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 30, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Antal 1935, p. 162, pi. IIIB; Florisoone 
1948, p. 113, pi. 155; Seznec and Adhemar 
1957 - 67 , vol. 4 (1967), p- 33 o; Lossky 1967, 
p. 50, ill.; Willk-Brocard 1978, no. 12, p. 
67, fig. 23; Paris 1984-85, p. 330. 


NOTE 

1 The 1880 sale catalogue identifies the buyer only 
as “Haro.” Because Henri Haro was then only 
twenty-five, it is possible that the buyer was 
actually his father, Etienne-Frangois Haro 
(1827-1897), and that Henri inherited the painting 
from him. The senior Haro was a student of both 
Ingres and Delacroix and had a significant 
collection, which included works from Ingres’s 
studio. Two sales of Etienne-Frangois’s collection 
took place in 1892 and 1897. Henri followed his 
father as a painter, expert, dealer, and restorer of 
paintings in Paris. 

35 (back to entry) 

Charles-Joseph Natoire 

(1700, Nimes-1777, Castel Gandolfo) 
Psyche in the Underworld 
(Psyche Obtaining the Elixir of Beauty 
from Proserpine), ca. 1735-39 
Oil on canvas, 101% x 65 3 A in. 

(258.8 x 167 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2001.80 


PROVENANCE 

Possibly commissioned by Louis-Denis 
de La Live de Bellegarde (1679-1751) for 
his Chateau de La Chevrette, Saint- 
Denis, near Paris. Private collection, 
France. [Marc Blondeau and Associates, 
sold in 2001 to]; LACMA. 

REFERENCES 

“Selection of 2002 Acquisitions” 2002, 
ill. p. 32; Bailey 2002, p. 255 n. 17; 
Caviglia-Brunel 2004, p. 37, ill. 7; New 
York-London 2005-6, p. 120, under no. 
46; Los Angeles 2006, pp. 63,66, ill. 75; 
Caviglia-Brunel 2011, p. 183 n. 28, ill.; 
Caviglia-Brunel 2012, p. 284, ill. p. 100. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The measurements of the painting have 
changed more than once since it was 
painted. The original support, a 
herringbone-weave, blue-and-white- 
striped canvas, had been lined with an 
aqueous adhesive to a plain-weave 
canvas. At that time the original tacking 
margins were folded out and painted, 
extending the design by as much as 2 Ji 
inches on the right side and 1 inch on 
the left. Since the bottom tacking 
margin had been trimmed, the painting 
was set at the edge of the stretcher. At a 
later time, an 8-inch-wide strip of 
canvas was added to the top of the 


191 


Appendix 






















painting. Small scallops had been cut 
out of the upper two corners of the 
addition: the lining canvas that was 
exposed was painted brown. 

A cross section of the ground and paint 
revealed the following: a translucent 
layer, probably sizing, directly on the 
canvas, containing some brown 
particles; a dark gray layer—the 
ground—on top of the size; and a 
creamy-colored layer, a second ground. 

The artist painted in a direct manner, 
creating the scene in one or more 
applications of paint. Paint ranges from 
thin vehicular to low impasto. He 
applied dark glazes over local colors, 
such as the midtones of the flesh, for 
the shadows. The opaque paints of the 
sky and the gray platform were thinly 
applied in a brushy manner. The 
infrared reflectogram revealed some 
minor changes in positions of the 
figures, and Psyche’s right hand was 
originally pointed more upward. 

The painting is in good condition with 
a few exceptions. The most extensive 
damage/restoration is along the top, 
and this includes a large circular 
restoration at the upper right in the 
grotto. The surface of the painting has 
some general light abrasions, especially 
in the darks of the grotto and in the 
clouds, that have been toned. The 
figures are in good condition, except for 
some localized abrasion of the shadows. 
The gray-haired figure at the lower left, 
however, has more abrasion than the 
others. There are numerous smaller 
damages and restorations scattered 
throughout the picture. The craquelure 
has a medium interval with slightly 
raised edges. 

When the painting was acquired, its 
surface had a very discolored coating, 
which consisted of several varnish 
layers. Restoration was carried out at 
LACMA in 2001. The old lining and the 
addition were removed, and the 
painting was relined with a paste/glue 
adhesive to linen. It now has a dammar 
varnish. 


36 (back to entry) 


37 (back to entry) 


Augustin Pajou 

(1730-1809, Paris) 

Portrait of a Man, 1791 
Plaster on painted wood socle and 
plinth; overall (with socle and plinth): 
29% x 19 Vi x 11 in. (75.6 x 49.5 x 27.9 cm) 
Inscribed on right shoulder truncation: 
Par Pajou Citoyen deLa Vide deParis. 1791 
Painted on front of plinth: si trompant 

NOS DOULEURS D’UN PERE QUI n’eST 
PLUS / CETTE ARGILE A NOS YEUX SAIT 
RETRACER L’lMAGE, / DANS NOS CCEURS 
AFFLIGES, OU VIVRONT SES VERTUS, / 
NOTRE AMOUR LUI CONSACRE UN PLUS 

durable hommAge. (While this clay 
can deceive our sorrow for a father who 
has died / by re-creating his image 
before our eyes, / It is in our suffering 
hearts, where his virtues survive, / that 
our love accords to him a more lasting 
homage.) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.75.101 


PROVENANCE 

Monsieur Wolff. Pierre Decourcelle 
(1856-1926), before 1900, by inheritance 
to his wife; nee Edmee About (1866- 
1960), by inheritance to their daughter; 
Mme Jacques Loste, nee Claudine 
Decourcelle (1899-1992). [Galerie 
Black-Nadau, Monte Carlo, at least from 
1972, sold 1975 to]; LACMA. 

references 

Paris 1900, no. 430; Lami 1910-11, vol. 2 
(1911), p. 221; Stein 1912, pp. 72-75,416; 
Paris 1932, no. 55, p. 47; London 1968, p. 
138, no. 814, fig. 349; “Acquisitions” 

1978; Los Angeles 1987, p. 148; Conisbee, 
Levkoff and Rand 1991, no. 8, pp. 40-42, 
ill.; Paris-New York 1997-98, under no. 
138, p. 352. 


Jean-Baptiste Regnault 

(1754-1829, Paris) 

Aeneas Offering Presents 
to KingLatinus and Asking Him 
for the Hand of His Daughter, 1778 
Oil on canvas, 9 14 x 19 14 in. 
(23.5x48.9 cm) 

Signed and dated lower right: 
Renaudf1778 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.31 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Salon of 1783, Paris, no. 169; Albuquerque 
1980, no. 3 (attr. Jean-Baptiste Benard); 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 74, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 36, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Blanc 1861-76, vol. 2 (1865), p. 8. 

(back to entry) 

Jean-Bernard Restout 

(1732-1796, Paris) 

The Arrival of Aeneas 
in Carthage, ca. 1772-74 
Oil on paper laid on canvas, 

12 14 x 27 in. (31.1 x 68.5 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.23 

Jean-Bernard Restout 

(1732-1796, Paris) 

The Departure of Dido and Aeneas for 

the Hunt, ca. 1772-74 

Oil on paper laid on canvas, 

12% x 15% in. (32.1 x 40 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.22 


PROVENANCE 

(Both) Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki 
(1924-2015), London, by 1973, sold 2000 
to; LACMA. 


192 


EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 

86 (attr. to J.-M. Vien), ill.; Albuquerque 
1980, no. 55 (attr. to Jean Restout), ill.; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
nos. 38,39, ills.; Omaha 2002-3, nos. 27, 
28, ills. 

REFERENCES 

Engerand 1901, p. 426, n. 3; Fenaille 1901, 
pp. 328-29; Bailey 1985, p. 142, no. 154 
(attr. to J. M. Vien); Gaehtgens and 
Lugand 1988, p. 219, no. 85(a) as “very 
doubtful Vien”; New York 1999, pp. 
190-92, under no. 83, ill.; Willk-Brocard 
2001, pp. 462-63, figs. 8,9; Los Angeles 
2006, p. 69; Marandel 2017, p. 65; 
Willk-Brocard 2018, p. 159, nos. 76P, 77P. 

39 (back to entry) 

Hubert Robert 

(1733-1808, Paris) 

Stair andFountain in a Park, ca. i775(?) 
Oil on canvas, 133% x 110 J 4 in. 

(340 x 280 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
AC1995.170.1 


PROVENANCE 

Camille Groult (1837-1908), by 1905; by 
descent in the family to; [Elizabeth 
Royer, Paris, sold 1995 to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 
Washington 2016, no. 71, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Flament 1908; Herzog 1989, p. 39, ill., 
p. 41, fig. 10; Los Angeles 2006, pp. 62, 
ill. 69. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The canvas support is made of three 
vertical pieces of identical plain-weave 
fabric. The painting was lined at some 
time to one large canvas with an 
aqueous adhesive. Original tacking 
edges were probably removed at that 
time. The artist painted the large 
fountain with its opaque white paint 
over the left seam so that it is less 
apparent. The support has a few short 
tears, but the lining has remained 
strong. The nine-window stretcher was 
probably supplied at the time of the 
lining. 


The painting has a double ground: a red 
layer lies directly on the canvas, and a 
thinner, white layer is over the red. At 
least parts of the design were drawn on 
the white ground with a dry medium, 
such as graphite or charcoal. The 
schematic drawing is visible in some 
thinly painted areas. For example, ruled 
lines for the steps are slightly visible. 

The landscape, the foliage, and the 
architecture were painted with several 
layers of thin translucent colors. The 
opaque colors, those containing lead 
white for the sky and the sprays from 
the fountains, were thinly applied so 
that any colors below affect the final 
appearance. The artist’s numerous 
shades of gray, green, and brown were 
mixed on the palette or produced by 
layering transparent colors. 

There are few notable pentimenti. The 
arch over the waterfall was lowered by 
about an inch from its first placement, 
which is visible in normal viewing 
circumstances. Another change—not so 
easily detected—is located to the right 
of the figure of the woman in the 
central foreground. During cleaning in 
1996, it became apparent that Robert 
had painted a figure of a boy who held a 
pole of some sort at a diagonal. 

However, Robert changed his mind and 
scraped out the figure, except for one of 
his legs and the pole. He then resur¬ 
faced the area with some sort of plaster, 
which now is old and cracked, and 
painted over the new surface and the 
remaining original paint to match the 
surrounding greenery and earth. 
Unfortunately, Robert’s repaint was 
removed at some time, necessitating 
reworking the area. 

The condition of the picture is excellent. 
However, when it came to the museum, 
it had not been cleaned for perhaps a 
century. Consequently, it was covered 
with several layers of discolored varnish 
and a great deal of dirt and soot. There 
were also discolored restorations from 
various times sandwiched between the 
layers of varnish. 


The 1996 restoration included removal 
of the nonoriginal repaint that was 
obviously later and discolored. The 
painting was varnished with a natural 
resin. 

40 (back to entry) 

Jacques Sablet 

(1749, Morges, Switzerland-1803, Paris) 
Helen Saved by Venus 
from the Wrath of Aeneas, 1779 
Oil on paper laid on canvas, 

19Vi x 1314 in. (24.1 x 34.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, Gift of The 

Ahmanson Foundation 

M.2000.179.27 


PROVENANCE 

The artist, at least until 1781. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 14 
(attr. to Gabriel-Frangois Doyen), ill.; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 55. ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 32, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Nantes-Lausanne-Rome 1985, p. 47, 
under no. 6. 

41 (back to entry) 

Jacques Sablet 

(1749, Morges, Switzerland-1803, Paris) 

Allegory of the City of Bern 
(The Temple of the Liberal Arts, with 
the City of Bern and the Goddess 
Minerva), 1779 

Oil on canvas, 13 14 x 21 in. (33.7 x 53.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.28 


PROVENANCE 

The artist, at least until 1781. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1970, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 
105 (as anonymous), ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 56, ill. 


193 


Appendix 



























REFERENCES 

Nantes-Lausanne-Rome 1985, under 
no. 6 (where the early provenance of the 
version in the museum in Lausanne 
may apply to the present work); Omaha 
2002-3, PP- 60-61, ill. 

42 (back to entry) 

Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours 

(1752-1809, Geneva) 

The Reunion of Cupid and Psyche, 1793 
Oil on panel, 13% x 15% in. 

(35.2 x 40 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.30 


PROVENANCE 

The artist, sold 1793 to; Jean-Isaac The- 
lusson (1758-1823), Geneva. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1980, sold 2002 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 22 (attributed to 
Gagneraux); American Federation of 
the Arts 1994-95, no. 59; Omaha 2002-3, 
no. 35, as Saint-Ours. 

REFERENCES 

Rome-Dijon 1983, p. 129, under nos. 4 
and 50; Perry 2006, p. 52, ill.; Rosenberg 
and Peronnet 2006, p. 57, under no. F.i; 
Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006a, p. 255, 
fig. 11; Geneva 2015-16, p. 46, under no. 4. 

43 (back to entry) 

Pierre Subleyras 

(1699, Saint-Gilles-du-Gard-1749, 

Rome) 

The Emperor Heraclius 
Carrying the Cross, 1728(F) 

Oil on canvas, 16 14 x 12 14 in. 

(41 x 31.8 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.10 


PROVENANCE 

Serra, Duca di Cardinale, Naples; 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 

76 (as representing Saint Ambrose and 
the emperor Theodosius), ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 15, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 13, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Paris-Rome 1987, pp. 151,298-99, fig. 8. 

44 (back to entry) 

Pierre Subleyras 

(1699, Saint-Gilles-du-Gard-1749, 
Rome) 

Seven Angels Adoring the Christ Child, 

ca. 1730-40 

Oil on canvas, 11% x 8 7 /s in. 

(29.8 x 22.5 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.9 


PROVENANCE 

Constantino Bartolomei(?) (d. 1767); 
Jacques-Claude de Beze de Lys (1713-1775) 
(sale, Paris, Remy, 3 Apr. 1775, lot 95). 
Louis-Francois de Bourbon, prince de 
Conti (1717-1776) (sale, Paris, Remy, 8 Apr. 
1777, lot 705, to); M. Lauglier. 1 Jean- 
Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun and Nicolas 
Lerouge (sale, Paris, 19 Jan. 1778, lot 97, 
to); Frangois-Pascal Haudry (1718-1800) 
(sale, Orleans, 4? Aug. 1800, no. 24). 
Anthony M. Clark (1923-1976) (sale, 
London, Christie’s, 6 July 1978, lot 58); 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 57, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 14, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Paris-Rome 1987, fig. 1, under no. 50. 
NOTE 

1 This name is written in the annotated sale 
catalogue at the Getty Research Institute, call no. 
408624. 


45 (back to entry) 

Joseph-Benoit Suvee 

(1743, Bruges-1807, Rome) 

The Predication of Saint Paul, ca. 1779 
Oil on canvas, 19% x 15 14 in. 
(50.2x38.7 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.24 


PROVENANCE 

Probably in the collection of the painter 
Adolphe Roehn (1780-1867). (Sale, Paris, 
Hotel Drouot, 2 Mar. 1868, lot 77). 
[Galerie Joseph Hahn, Paris]. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Paris 1779, no. 191, p. 37; Florence 1969, 
unnumbered, ill.; Paris 1972, no. 28; 
Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 77, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 45, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
29, ill.; Los Angeles 2001. 

REFERENCES 

Bellier de la Chavignerie and Auvray 
1882-87, vol. 2 (1885), p. 535; Du Pont de 
Nemours 1908, p. 85 n. 187; Sanchez 
2005, vol. 3, p. 1568; Join-Lambert and 
Leclair 2017, p. 88, ill., pp. 219-20, P. 75. 

(back to entry) 

Pierre-Henri de 
Valenciennes 

(1750, Toulouse-1819, Paris) 

Landscape with Ruins, possibly 1782-85 
Oil on paper laid on canvas, 13 x 19 in. 
(33x48.3 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.29 


PROVENANCE 

Galerie de Bayser, Paris, in 1973-74. 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Paris 1973-74; Albuquerque 1980, no. 64, 
ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 57, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
34, ill.; Los Angeles 2008-9. 



194 


47 (back to entry) 

Joseph-Marie Vien 

(1716, Montpellier-1809, Paris) 

Venus Emerging from the Sea, 
ca. 1754-55 

Oil on canvas, 12% x 16 14 in. 

(32.4x41.3 cm) 

Inscribed on the back: Esquisse de M. Vien 
faite a Rome (by a later hand) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.17 


PROVENANCE 

(Artist’s sale, Paris, Paillet, 17 May 1809, 
lot 93). (Sale, London, Sotheby’s, 16 July 
1980, lot 228, to); Andrew S. Ciecha¬ 
nowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 1994, 
sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 27, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 21, ill. 

REFERENCE 

Gaehtgens and Lugand 1988, no. 208, ill. 

(back to entry) 

Francois-An drc Vincent 

(1747-1816, Paris) 

Democritus among the Abderitans, 

1784(5) 

Oil on canvas, 18 x 21% in. (45.7 x 55.2 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.26 


PROVENANCE 

Possibly collection of the Societe des 
Amis des Arts. 1 Probably Etienne 
Palliere (1761-1820), a pupil of the artist 
(sale, Paris, Coutelier, 25 Mar. 1820, lot 
308, as “esquisse peinte en 1784,” to); 
[Meunier, Paris]. Possibly Xavier de 
Montepin (1823-1902). Possibly 
Comtesse Munier-Jolain (sale, Paris, 
Drouot, 9 Dec. 1910, lot 55, sold to); 
“Gellien.” [Jacques Petit-Hory, Paris]. 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold in 2000 to; 
LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Possibly Salon of 1791, no. 348; Houston 
and other cities 1973-75, no. 89, ill.; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 52, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 31, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1791, p. 42; 
Renouvier 1863, p. 74; Bellier de la 
Chavignerie and Auvray 1882-87, vol. 2 
(1885), p. 691; Rosenberg and Van de 
Sandt 1983, p. 152; Mansfield 2012, pp. 
13c 137-42,184,215,259 nn. 15-19, pi. 19, 
p. 139 , fig- 6.4; Cuzin 2013, pp. 128-29, 
pp. 270,447-48, ill. no. 431P. 

NOTE 

1 This was noted in van de Sandt 2006, p. 70. 

49 (back to entry) 

Jean-Antoine Watteau 

(1684, Valenciennes-1721, Nogent- 
sur-Marne) 

The Perfect Accord, ca. 1719 

Oil on chestnut panel, 13 x 11 in. (33 x 

27.9 cm) 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
AC1999.18.1 


PROVENANCE 

Nicolas de Henin (1691-1724), Paris; 

Jean de Julienne (1686-1766), Paris, by 
June 1730, sold by 1756 to; Germain 
Louis de Chauvelin, marquis de 
Grosbois and garde des sceaux (1685- 
1762), Paris (his sale, 2 June 1762, no. 27, 
to); Jean-Baptiste Auguste II le Rebours 
de Saint-Mard (1718-1777), Paris (his 
sale, Paris, 27 Apr. 1778, lot 31, to); 
Jean-Baptiste Pierre Lebrun, Paris (his 
sale, Paris, 10 Dec. 1778, lot 109). 
Anonymous sale, Paris, 1782. Sir 
Thomas Baring (1772-1848), London 
(his sale, London, Christie and Manson, 
3 June 1848, lot 84 [sold to “White”]). 
Andrew James (1793-ca. 1857), London, 
by descent to his daughter; Sarah Ann 
James (1829-ca. 1891), London (her sale, 
London, Christie’s, 20 June 1891, lot 33, 
to); Samson Wertheimer, London (his 
sale, London, Christie’s, 19 Mar. 1892, lot 
708, to); [Agnew’s, London, sold in 1892 
to]; Edward Guinness (1847-1927), 1st 
Earl of Iveagh, Kenwood House, 
Hampstead, upon his death to his son; 
Rupert Edward Cecil Lee Guinness 



(1874-1967), 2nd Earl of Iveagh, upon 
his death to his daughter; Lady Brigid 
Ness (1920-1995), upon her death, sold 
to; [Simon Dickinson, Ltd., London, 
sold 1999 to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Valenciennes 2004, no. 56; Washington 
2017. 

REFERENCES 

Hedouin 1845, no. 63; Hedouin 1856, no. 
64; Waagen 1854-57, vol. 3 (1854), p. 214; 
Goncourt 1875, no. 97; Hannover 1888, p. 
99; Bourcaud 1893, p. 532; Zimmermann 
1912, p. 186, under no. 23; Dacier and 
Vuaflart 1921-29, vol. 1 (1929), p. 90, vol. 

3 (1922), no. 23; Reau 1928, no. 118; 
Adhemar 1950, no. 120; Davies 1957, p. 
223; Mathey 1959, p. 69; Macchia and 
Montagni 1968, no. 196; Mirimonde 
1961, p. 270; Nicolson 1969, pp. 165-66, 
171; Ferre et al. 1972, vol. 3, pp. 964-65, 
no. B.29; Bjurstrbm 1984, pp. 57-63, ill. 
p. 57; Roland Michel 1984, pp. 55,266, 
287; Rosenberg and Prat 1996, vol. 2, 
nos. 538,576, vol. 3, no. R 835; Marandel 
2001; Temperini 2002, no. 106; Los 
Angeles 2006, pp. 63-65, ill. 72 and 
detail 73; Glorieux 2011, p. 162; 
Rosenberg and Prat 2011, under no. 75; 
Vogtherr 2011, p. 117; Eidelberg 2017; 
Fenton 2017, p. 32. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The support for the painting is a piece 
of wood that was possibly salvaged 
from a coach door: in addition to having 
a pronounced horizontal bow, the 
X-radiograph of the painting disclosed 
a decorative design beneath Watteau’s 
paints. That image is a prancing horse 
at the center of the panel (inverted to 
the painting), surrounded by various 
decorative motifs cut off at the edges of 
the panel. An X-radiograph of a panel 
painting by Watteau, Theltalian Serenade 
( 33-5 by 27 cm), in the Nationalmuseum 
in Stockholm (inv. no. NM 5650), shows 
the other half of the design on the 
LACMA panel. 

The salvaged panel was prepared for 
Watteau’s painting with a gray ground. 
The artist painted to the very edges of 
the panel. Nonetheless, barbs less than 


195 


Appendix 





























14 inch from each edge were possibly 
formed by framing while the medium 
was still soft and/or if the artist finished 
the painting after framing. 

Paint varies from opaque, light colors 
applied with low impasto to thin, dark 
glazes. The artist’s application ranged 
from short strokes exemplified by the 
blue, red, and white colors of the upper 
garment of the seated woman to thin 
broad glazes over the local colors. 

Watteau used several sequences in 
applying paint: the white skirt, for 
example, has an underlayer of white 
over which the artist applied highlights 
and shadows. The woman’s flesh is 
painted in the same manner but with 
flesh tones. The guitarist’s costume, in 
contrast, has no underlayer. Instead, the 
local color was applied in small, regular 
strokes directly on the gray ground. 

The artist also overlapped the forms in 
the finished painting. The mauve dress, 
for example, was painted over part of 
the yellow suit of the man in the 
background, and the flutist’s proper 
right arm and shoulder were painted 
over the dress behind him. 

The X-radiograph revealed numerous 
pentimenti, but the most remarkable is 
a full frontal Pierrot-like figure with a 
wide-brimmed hat. He extends from 
the head of the man in the background 
of the finished painting to the head of 
the guitarist. The figure wears a loose 
shirt with a wide collar and baggy pants. 
The collar may have little balls dangling 
from its edge. Given the density of the 
figure in the X-radiograph, the paint 
must contain a large proportion of lead 
white. When the Pierrot was painted, a 
reserve was left for the proper right side 
and arm of the flutist. 

The artist made numerous changes 
while painting the figures for the final 
painting. In an earlier conception, the 
flutist wore a hat of some sort, and he 
was strumming a guitar with his right 
hand. That figure was seated closer to 
his companion, and he smiled as he 
looked down toward her chest. When 
he was changed to a flutist, his blue 


costume was painted over the guitar. 
The seated woman’s head had two 
earlier positions, both in three-quarter 
views facing to her left. Additionally, 
the X-radiograph revealed a head to the 
right of the couple in the background, 
with its profile facing to the left. In the 
lower part of the painting, the 
X-radiograph revealed the upper body 
of a woman in three-quarter view facing 
the guitarist. 

The condition of this painting is good. 
The mechanical cracks in the artist’s 
paint layers are only slightly visible. 
Contraction cracks are particularly 
noticeable in the right background. 

Ultraviolet light detected restoration in 
the shadow between the heads of the 
flutist and the seated woman, which 
hides changes in the position of the 
faces and some abrasion. The thinly 
painted figures in the background have 
been lightly abraded, and the paints 
have become more transparent with 
time. 

The painting must have been cleaned in 
the last thirty years. Ultraviolet light 
showed a strongly fluorescing varnish 
around the central group, which was 
obviously cleaned to a greater degree 
than the perimeter. 


50 (back to entry) 


Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux 

(1827, Valenciennes-1875, Courbevoie) 
Seascape, mid-i9th century 
Oil on panel, 6 x 12% in. (15.2 x 31.1 cm) 
Signed lower right: JBt Carpeaux 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.44 


PROVENANCE 

(Sale, Paris, 1913, lot 149, titled Mer 
deferlant, sold to); Alfred Strolin. Private 
collection, Paris, ca. 1955-56. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 10, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 117, ill.; 
Valenciennes-Paris-Amsterdam 
1999-2000, p. 177, no. 95, ill.; Omaha 
2002-3, no. 52, ill. 

51 (back to entry) 

Jean-Joseph Carries 

(1855, Lyon-1894, Paris) 

Portrait ofLoyseLabbe, between 1888 
and 1894 

Enameled stoneware with a matte glaze, 
toned from chamois brown to shaded 
white, 23 x 25 x 13 in. (58.4 x 63.5 x 33 cm) 
Signed lower right edge: Carries 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation in honor of 

Mary L. Levkoff 

M.2009.7 


PROVENANCE 

Possibly the cast seen by Carries’s 
biographer Arsene Alexandre in the 
artist’s studio in 1895. Lamartiniere 
collection, 1900s, by descent to; Jean de 
Lamartiniere, 2006, sold to; [Galerie 
Fournier, Paris, sold to]; [Charles 
Janoray, LLC, New York, sold 2008 to]; 
LACMA. 

52 (back to entry) 

Jacques-Louis David 

(1748, Paris-1825, Brussels) 

Portrait ofJean-Pierre Delahaye, 1815 
Oil on panel, 24 x 19 14 in. (61 x 49 cm) 
Signed and dated lower left: L. DAVID / 
1815 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2006.63 


PROVENANCE 

Jean-Pierre Delahaye (1757-1819), by 
descent to his son; Jean-Louis Delahaye 
(1786-1874), by descent to his son; 
Edmond-Jacques Delahaye (1834-1887), 
by descent to his daughter; Marthe 
Levavasseur (1865-1921), by descent to 
her daughter; Jeanne Levavasseur 
(1887-1982) by descent (sale, Paris, 
Christie’s, 22 June 2006, lot 55 to); 
LACMA. 


196 


REFERENCES 

David 1880-82, vol. 1 (1880), p. 648; Paris 
1989-90, p. 376, fig. 95 (where described 
as Portrait ofjean-Louis Delahaye); 
Williamstown-Los Angeles 2004-5, 
pp. 295,352 n. 2 (where described 
ns Portrait of Jean-Louis Delahaye); Bordes 
2006. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The support is an oak panel constructed 
of three vertical boards; the two boards 
on the right side of the reverse are each 
7 5 /8 inches wide, and the third board is 
2% inches wide. In addition, narrow 
strips of a different type of wood, each 
about 3 /8 inch wide, have been glued to 
the sides of the main panel 1 very 
possibly by the artist after the portrait 
was begun. The main panel of three 
boards is beveled on the reverse. The 
entire reverse of the support is covered 
with brown paint that has some age. 
The condition of the support is good, as 
the panel is flat and the joins of the 
additions show only slightly on the 
front of the painting. 

The panel has a lead white and gypsum- 
based ground that is thin enough to 
provide some sense of the wood grain 
on the painted surface. 2 As the first step 
in the painting process, the artist drew 
the outline and features of the subject 
and indicated the shadows with brush 
and thin red earth paint. He then 
applied thin dark paint in relatively 
short strokes with a stiff brush in a 
technique called/roftis 3 for the back¬ 
ground. Next, David began to lay in the 
local colors: he followed the academic 
approach of applying thin darker colors 
for shadows and thick lights for 
highlights to be worked up with middle 
tones, mixed on the palette to connect 
the highlights and shadows. XRF (X-ray 
fluorescence) pectrometry examination 
suggests that the pigments in Dela- 
haye’s face include yellow ocher, Naples 
yellow, and vermilion mixed with lead 
white. 

While the background has the thin dark 
paint layer, the narrow wood additions 
were painted with opaque brown paint, 
which actually extends over the thinner 
brown paint of the main panel. The 
XRF examination determined that 


pigments throughout the painting 
were consistent and typical for the 
period. No significant pigment 
differences were found between the 
paint on the additions and that on the 
main panel, which both contain a good 
deal of iron, suggesting a natural earth 
pigment (iron oxide). The L of the 
signature was painted over the opaque 
brown layer of the narrow addition of 
wood. 

The infrared reflectogram shows a 
pentimento on the left side of 
Delahaye’s torso. Delahaye’s coat was 
initially about an inch more to the left, 
and the contour was livelier, with the 
lapel pointing out to the left. There may 
also be slight position changes along 
the upper part of the head. Infrared also 
revealed dark painterly areas over the 
added wood strips and above Delahaye’s 
left shoulder. 

The painting is in good condition. The 
flesh and white clothing have held up 
well. The shadow on the left side of the 
sitter’s face is somewhat abraded and 
partially repainted. The hair is also in 
good state. The black shadows of the 
suit are exceptionally well preserved. A 
horizontal disruption about 1 by 4 
inches at the lower left sleeve is visible 
in raking light. Tiny cracks can be seen 
with magnification in parts of the face, 
but horizontal cracks in the white 
clothing are more apparent. Very fine 
contraction cracks formed in the flesh 
and above the sitter’s left shoulder. The 
signature appears in good state, with 
little if any abrasion and toning. 

Reportedly, the varnish on the painting 
when received by Christie’s was so 
discolored and opaque that an attribu¬ 
tion could not be made. So, the painting 
was lightly cleaned in London before 
the sale. The surface of the painting 
under ultraviolet light exhibited a very 
dense fluorescing green coating that 
obscured the background in particular. 
The fluorescing layer may or may not be 
old. After the picture’s acquisition, 
areas of discolored varnish were 
thinned at LACMA, and the painting 
was varnished with a natural resin 
varnish. 


NOTES 

1 Christies’s, “Condition Report for Jacques-Louis 
David’s Portrait ofJean-Pierre Delahaye,” 
unpublished communication to potential buyers, 
David object file. Department of Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA. 

2 “Conservation Center Scientific Research, 
Analysis, and Examination Report,” 28 July 2006, 
David object file, Department of Paintings 
Conservation, LACMA. 

3 See Boime 1971, pp. 38,40; and Mayer 1969, p. 159. 

53 (back to entry) 

Narcisse-Virgilio Diaz 
de la Pena 

(1807, Bordeaux-1876, Menton) 

Figures in Oriental Costumes, ca. 1845 
Oil on panel, 18 34 x 12 in. (47.6 x 27.9 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.39 


PROVENANCE 

Private collection, France (indecipher¬ 
able seal on the back). Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1980, sold 2000 to: LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 19, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 106, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 46, ill. 

54 (back to entry) 

Louis Edouard Dubufe 

(1820, Paris-1883, Versailles) 

Portrait of the Princess Brancaccio, nee 
Mary Elizabeth Hickson-Field, ca. 1870 
Oil on canvas, 16 14 x 11 14 in. 

(41.9x29.2 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.41 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1994, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 111, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 49, ill. 


197 


Appendix 


















55 (back to entry) 


J ean-Alexandre-J oseph 
Falguiere 

(1831, Toulouse-1900, Paris) 

Man Smoking a Pipe, ca. 1875 

Oil on canvas, 21 x 17% in. (55.9 x 45.1 cm) 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.46 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 29, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 120, ill.; 
Los Angeles 2001; Omaha 2002-3, 
no. 54, ill. 


56 


(back to entry) 


J ean-Alexandre-J oseph 
Falguiere 

(1831, Toulouse-1900, Paris) 

Figures Seated around a Lamp, n.d. 

Oil on canvas, 914 x 13 in. (23.5 x 33 cm) 
Signed lower right: A.Fg 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.45 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 30, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 119, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 53, ill. 


57 (back to entry) 


Hippolyte-Jean Flandrin 

(1809, Lyon-1864, Rome) 

The Sacrifice of Isaac, i860 

Oil on board, 18 J4 x 23 Yx in. (47 x 59.7 cm) 

Signed and dated lower left: HteFlandrin 

i860 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.40 


PROVENANCE 

The artist (estate sale, Paris, Hotel 
Drouot, 15-17 May 1865, lot 11, sold for 
1,600 frs. to); Charles-Hippolyte Paravey 
(1787-1871), Paris (estate sale, Paris, 
Hotel Drouot, 13 Apr. 1878, lot 25, sold 
for 1,000 frs. to); Mme Raynaud, nee 
Emile Paravey, Paris. 1 Anonymous (sale, 
Paris, Hotel Drouot, 4 Dec. 1973, lot 116). 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Paris 1865, no. 86 (lie), p. 14; 2 Peoria 1980, 
no. 31, ill.; New York 1980, no. 81, p. 238, 
ill.; Paris-Lyon 1984-85, no. 68; 
American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 100, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 47, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Lanvin 1967, vol. 2, p. 269, location 
unknown; Horaist 1979, no. 65 (as 
location unknown), and no. 66 as 
Shepherd Gallery, New York, p. 226. 

NOTES 

1 Mme Raynaud also acquired other paintings 
from the Paravey sale, including Botticelli’s The 
Virgin Adoring the Child (National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, inv. no. 1952.2.4), suggesting 
that they might actually have been unsold and 
returned to the family. The Botticelli was sold in 
a sale of old master paintings in Paris on 16 Dec. 
1929. 

2 Listed among the “esquisses peintes des dix-huit 
peintures murals de la nef de Saint-Germain-des- 
Pres, no. 86, Cote droit, lie, Isaac au moment 
d’etre immole par son pere.” 


EXHIBITIONS 

Houston and other cities 1973-75, no. 

26, ill.; Chapel Hill 1978, no. 34, ill.; New 
York 1989, no. 31A, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 86, ill.; 
New York 1998-99, ill.; Los Angeles 
2001; Omaha 2002-3, no. 41, ill.; Paris 
2010, no. 19, pp. 85,88,142, fig. 35. 

REFERENCES 

Bordes 1983, pp. 86-89,119 n. 322, fig. 42; 
Moulin 1983, esp. p. 201 n. 9; Olander 
1983, pp. 317-19, fig. 22; Paris 1989-90, 
p. 858; Los Angeles 2003, p. 103; 

Los Angeles 2006, pp. 85, ill. 103. 

59 (back to entry) 

Jean-Leon Gerome 

(1824, Vesoul-1904, Paris) 

Arab Woman in a Doorway, ca. 1870 
Oil on canvas, 13 K x 10% in. (33.7 x 26 cm) 
Stamped lower left: ATELIER J. L. 
GEROME 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.43 


PROVENANCE 

The artist’s studio. Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, 
by 1994, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

American Federation of Arts 1994-95, 
no. 116, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 51, ill. 


(back to entry) 

Baron Franco is-Pascal- 
Simon Gerard 

(1770, Rome-1837, Paris) 

The 10th of August, 1792, ca. 1795-99 
Oil with graphite on canvas, 42 x 56% in. 
(106.7 x 144-1 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.36 


(back to entry) 

Louis Lafitte 

(1770-1828, Paris) 

Brutus Listening to the Ambassadors 
of the Tarquins( ?), ca. 1790 
Oil on canvas, 19% x 2714 in. (48.9 x 
69.9 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.34 


PROVENANCE 

Family of the artist, by descent to; 
Gramont. Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki 
(1924-2015), London, by 1973, sold 2000 
to; LACMA. 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1973, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 


EXHIBITIONS 

Albuquerque 1980, no. 41, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 82, ill. 
(as Guillaume Guillon-Lethiere); 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 40, ill. 

(back to entry) 

Jerome-Martin Langlois 

(1779-1838, Paris) 

The Marriage of the Virgin, 1833 
Oil on paper mounted on canvas, 

13 % x 18 % in. (33.7 x 46.4 cm) 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.37 


PROVENANCE 

Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

New York 1980, no. 16, ill.; Peoria 1980, 
no. 33, ill.; American Federation of Arts 
1994-95, no. 91, ill.; Omaha 2002-3, no. 
42, ill. 

(back to entry) 

Jcan-Francois Millet 

(1814, Gruchy-1875, Barbizon) 

A Norman Milkmaid at Greville, 1871 
Oil on canvas mounted on paperboard, 
31 hi x 21% in. (80 x 55.6 cm) 

Gift of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. 

M.81.259.4 


PROVENANCE 

The artist, sold to or through; [Paul 
Durand-Ruel, Paris]. Laurent Richard, 
Paris, by 1878. J. M. Rhodes, New York, 
sold 1902 to; [Paul Durand-Ruel, New 
York, sold 1902 to]; Charles M. Schwab, 
New York (sale. New York, Tobias, 
Fischer and Co., 24 Apr. 1940, lot 49, 
bought in), by inheritance to; Edward H. 
Schwab, Westport, CT. [Kleinberger, 

New York, in 1941]. [Vose Galleries, 
Providence and Boston, 1942]. [John 
Nicholson, New York and London, in 
1943]- [Arthur Tooth Gallery, Los 
Angeles? in 1957]. Howard F. Ahmanson 
(1906-1968), Los Angeles, to; Dorothy 
Grannis Sullivan (1908-1979), Los 


Angeles, by 1973, through inheritance to 
her son; Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (b. 1950), 
Los Angeles, gift 1981 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

London 1956, p. 365, ill.; Tokyo-Kyoto- 
Kofu 1991, pp. 114,189, no. 48, ill.; 
Chiba-Okayama-Gifu-Osaka 1997, p. 72, 
no. 54, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Sensier 1881, p. 206; Moreau-Nelaton 
1921, p. 71, fig. 269; “Evolution of 
Painting: ‘Paris-Londres’ Exhibition,” 
TheScotsman (9 Apr. 1956); Herbert 1980; 
“Chronique des arts” 1983, p. 42, no. 234, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1983; Los Angeles 1987, 
p. 70, ill.; Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 
1991, no. 23, pp. 93-96, ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting is on cardboard that was 
prepared with a smooth white ground. 
Black lines that may be part of an initial 
sketch are visible in the background, 
where a cow and sheep are grazing. The 
grass and the basket were laid in with 
thin transparent yellow paint, and the 
milkmaid, with transparent orange 
paint. The artist developed the design 
with opaque pasty paint applied with 
open brushwork in several layers of 
different but related tones. The sky was 
painted with light blue paint that was 
covered with strokes of gray-blue and 
greenish paint. Open brushwork 
permits layered colors to mix in the eye, 
while in other areas, such as the green 
grass, strokes of paint have been 
overlapped to a dense, opaque paint 
layer. Brushstrokes of different lengths 
that follow the forms are evident 
throughout to unify the surface of the 
painting. Some minor adjustments, 
such as those along the outline of the 
milkmaid, are visible. 

The painting is in good condition. Fine 
cracking extends throughout the paint 
layer, although it is more pronounced 
in thicker paints, and large diagonal 
cracks in the top left corner extend into 
the center of the picture. There is a 
repair in the top left corner. Residues of 
a yellowed natural resin varnish that 
had been mostly removed are scattered 
over the paint surface beneath a 
synthetic resin varnish. 


(back to entry) 

Claude Monet 

(1840, Paris-1926, Giverny) 

View ofVetheuil, 1880 
Oil on canvas, 31% x 25% in. (81 x 65 cm) 
Signed with estate stamp lower right: 
Claude Monet 


Gift of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. 
M.81.259.3 


PROVENANCE 

Estate of the artist bequethed to; Michel 
Monet (1878-1966), Giverny. Dr. Jean 
Stehelin (1903-1973), Paris and Cannes, 
by 1947. [Wildenstein and Co., London]. 
Howard F. Ahmanson (1906-1968), Los 
Angeles, by i960, to; Dorothy Grannis 
Sullivan (1908-1979), Los Angeles, by 
1973, through inheritance to her son; 
Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (b. 1950), Los 
Angeles, gift 1981 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, 22 
May 1979-16 Sept. 1981 (on extended 
loan); Edinburgh 2003, p. 96, no. 36, ill.; 
Brescia 2004-5, PP- 324-25. no. 96, ill.; 
Montpellier-Grenoble 2007-8, p. 79. 

REFERENCES 

Wildenstein 1974, vol. 1, p. 372, no. 603, 
ill.; Los Angeles 1983, ill.; Los Angeles 
1987, p. 71, ill.; Conisbee, Levkoff, and 
Rand 1991, no. 22, pp. 90-92, ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The painting is on a plain-weave 
commercially prepared canvas that is 
a standard number 25 portrait size. 
Whereas there is an empty set of tack 
holes in the tacking margins, the 
stretcher may be original, since 
stretcher marks in the paint film 
correspond to the width of the present 
stretcher bars. Pinholes of varying 
diameters along the perimeter of the 
face of the painting might have been 
made if the painting were removed 
from the stretcher and restretched, a 
process that may have involved pinning 
the painting for any of a number of 
reasons. Cusping exists along all four 
sides of the painting. 


199 


Appendix 






























An off-white ground covers the tacking 
margins. Most colors were lightened by 
a large addition of a white pigment, 
although there are limited dark reds, 
blues, and greens that may be pure. 
Paint was applied with horizontal 
strokes across the sky area and vertical 
ones for the distant hill, and with swirls, 
arcs, and gestural lines in the fore¬ 
ground. The artist painted wet-in-wet 
and wet-over-dry. The sky, river, and 
distant hill have a cool, light-blue 
underpaint that has texture and 
impasto. The artist laid in the hill in the 
foreground with green paint thinly 
brushed in an open fashion on the 
ground. Once the green paint was firm, 
the artist applied various hues, includ¬ 
ing green, violet, and blue, in swirls and 
lines, leaving small areas of the green 
layer and light-colored ground exposed. 
The artist scraped and/or wiped some 
areas, such as the right side of the river 
and parts of the sky, so that the canvas 
weave was exposed. The artist’s paint 
over his own abrasions has the same 
fluorescence as the surrounding paint 
in ultraviolet light. 

The distant hill was originally lower, 
but the artist raised its height with 
horizontal strokes of thick paint 
dragged across the sky. Raking light 
picked out a series of thick vertical 
strokes of paint in the sky that do not 
relate to the final composition. The 
black signature stamp at the lower right 
applied on top of dried paint is faint in 
some areas. 

The painting is in good condition. It has 
a fine craquelure, and diagonal cracks 
are located in the top left corner. 
Scattered pinpoint losses may be 
associated with the artist’s scraping of 
paint. A synthetic resin varnish appears 
to have been selectively applied. 


6 4 (back to entry) 


Ary Scheffer 

(1795, Dordrecht-1858, Argenteuil) 

The Last Communion ofSaint Louis, 

1823 

Oil on canvas, 18 14 x 15 14 in. 

(46.4 x 38.7 cm) 

Signed and inscribed at the bottom: 
derniere communion de Saint Louis pour 
I’eglise de Saint Louis en I’lle/ispdssuriiYzl 
A. Scheffer 


The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 
Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.38 


PROVENANCE 

The artist, to; Mme Aubry-Vitet (nee 
Amelie Vitet), 1 1937. Anonymous (sale, 
Paris, Hotel Drouot, 6 Mar. 1972, lot 36, 
as La mort de Saint Louis). Andrew S. 
Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), London, by 
1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 47, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 100, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 44, ill. 

REFERENCES 

Kolb 1937, pp. 278-80,469; Ewals 1987, 
pp. 227-28. 


NOTE 

1 Presumably Amelie Aubrey-Vitet (b. ca. 1846), who 
was married to Eugene Aubrey. Mme Aubrey-Vitet 
was the sister of the French dramatist and 
politician Ludovic Vitet (1802-1873) and shared 
letters between Vitet and Scheffer, as well as her 
own memories with Scheffer’s biographer. The 
Vitet family were good friends of Scheffer, and the 
two families had houses close to each other in 
Argenteuil. See Kolb 1937. Because she was twelve 
when the artist died, Mme Aubrey-Vitet may have 
inherited the painting from her brother or 
another family member who acquired it directly 
from Scheffer. 


65 


(back to entry) 


Constant Troyon 

(1810, Sevres-1865, Paris) 

View at La Ferte-Saint-Aubin, near 
Orleans, ca. 1840 

Oil on canvas, 50% x 75% in. (129 x 192 cm) 
Signed lower left: C. Troyon 


Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.91.36 


PROVENANCE 

Private collection, France (Lyon?). 1 (Sale, 
Monaco, Sotheby’s, 16 June 1990, lot 
623). [Bruno Meissner, Zurich, Apr. 1991, 
to]; LACMA. 

EXHIBITION 

(?)Salon de Lyon, mid-i9th century. 2 

REFERENCES 

Conisbee, Levkoff and Rand 1991, no. 52, 
pp. 203-6, ill.; Los Angeles 1991, n.p., ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

The support is a dense plain-weave 
canvas that is unlined and on what may 
be its original stretcher, a number 120 
standard size (130 by 195 cm; 51 Vs by 
76 in.), which has crossbars and 

mortise and tenon joins. The stamp for 
Deforge on the reverse occurs on other 
canvases by the artist. The canvas may 
have been prepared with the light-col¬ 
ored ground by the supplier. The 
tacking margins and about Vs inch of 
the edges of the painting are covered 
with brown tape. No underdrawing was 
visible in an infrared reflectogram. 

Local colors of the sky were thinly 
applied with fluid paints and open 
brushwork on a light-colored layer. 
Reserves were left for the trees. It is the 
light color showing through the blues 
of the sky that creates the atmosphere. 
The artist laid in the landscape with 
thin brown paint. He then built up the 
landscape in layers of translucent or 
thinly applied colors. The surface was 
finished with thicker paints, such as the 
greens that can show brush marks, 
especially the bright greens in the 
foreground. Staffage was painted on top 
of the landscape. The dark paint has 
some deep wrinkles and drying cracks, 
suggesting the inclusion of a bitumi¬ 
nous color. 

The artist made adjustments as he 
painted. For example, the crown of the 
tree on the left was adjusted with the 
paint of the sky. In addition, the artist 
changed his mind about the placement 
and shape of the tall tree at the right 


200 


side of the picture. Raking light 
revealed that its trunk was initially 
more to the left by about two inches, 
and it was bent to the right at about a 
30-degree angle. 

The condition is very good despite 
limited surface abrasion of the dark 
colors. The signature, especially the roy, 
has some abrasion. There are minor 
deformations in the canvas, which 
include stretcher marks. The painting 
was restored before entering LACMA’s 
collection. 

NOTES 

1 The sales catalogue notes that the painting was in 
a private collection in Lyon for generations, after 
having been purchased in the mid-nineteenth 
century at an exhibition in Lyon. 

2 Ibid. 

(back to entry) 

Edouard Vuillard 

(1868, Cuiseaux-1940, La 
Baule-Escoublac) 

Landscape atL’Etang-la-Ville, ca. 1900 
Oil on canvas, 13 x 18 Vs in. (33 x 46 cm) 
Signed with estate stamp lower right: 

E. Vuillard 

Gift of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. 

M.81.259.2 


PROVENANCE 

Ker-Xavier Roussel (1867-1944), 
L’Etang-la-Ville, gift to; 1 Dr. Henri 
Cointepas, Marly-le-Roi, France. Andre 
Schoeller, Paris, 1949. 2 [Tooth Gallery, 
London, 1951]. 3 “Dean of York,” by 7 Oct. 
1957 ; consigned to; [Tooth Gallery, 
London, stock no. 5215, sold 31 July 1958, 
to]; 4 Selves. Howard F. Ahmanson 
(1906-1968), Los Angeles, to; Dorothy 
Grannis Sullivan (1908-1979), Los 
Angeles, by 1973, through inheritance to 
her son; Howard Ahmanson, Jr. (b. 1950), 
Los Angeles, by 1973, gift 1981 to; 
LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Paris 1950, no. 188, as Pay sage a Vaucresson 
(1907), no owner; London 1951, no. 15, as 
Paysage a Vaucresson (1907); Norton 
Simon Museum, Pasadena, 22 May 1979- 
16 Sept. 1981 (on extended loan). 


REFERENCES 

Los Angeles 1987, p. 100, ill.; Conisbee, 
Levkoff, and Rand 1991, no. 21, pp. 87-89, 
ill.; Salomon and Cogeval 2003, vol. 2, 
p. 589, no. IW-97; Cergy-Pontoise 2009, 
p. 6, ill. 

TECHNICAL REPORT 
The oil sketch is on a medium-weight, 
preprimed canvas that may be a 
standard size number o landscape, 18 
by 12 inches. It has been lined with 
wax-resin adhesive to a fine canvas and 
attached to a modern stretcher. 

Tacking margins have been unevenly 
cropped; however, the bottom margin 
was removed up to the paint edge. A 
strip J4 inch wide trimmed from a 
tacking margin was subsequently 
added to the bottom, and at the same 
time, the right tacking margin was 
flattened and incorporated into the 
picture plane. Light cusping exists at 
the top and right edges of the canvas. 

The canvas was left unpainted along the 
perimeter. Black particles visible in 
numerous areas may be from a drawing 
material. 

The initial lay-in of the landscape 
consists of relatively thin applications 
of opaque paint that left reserves for the 
sky and the houses. The landscape was 
built up with various consistencies of 
paint, including thicker applications 
with impasto. Most houses and the sky 
were painted wet-in-wet with thick 
opaque paint. The signature, E Vuillard, 
was painted with thin semitransparent 
brown paint. 

The sketch is in relatively good 
condition despite some abrasion, small 
losses, and flattening by the lining. The 
estate stamp signature is in only fair 
condition: the letters V and the second l 
and ard are noticeably abraded. A 
number of losses along cracks in the sky 
have been filled and inpainted. Rolling 
of the painting at some time may have 
created a series of predominantly 
vertical cracks. Remnants of a yellowed 
natural resin varnish are in the paint 
crevices. The present synthetic resin 
varnish is somewhat dull, but not 
disturbing. 


NOTES 

1 Glasgow-Sheffield-Amsterdam 1991-92, p. 76. 

2 Glasgow-Sheffield-Amsterdam 1991-92, p. 76. 

3 See London 1951. There are two entries for 
Vuillard, “Paysage,” in the Tooth Gallery stock 
books. Both are listed with a price of £350, and 
neither one is assigned dimensions. They are 
listed on 17 April 1950 (stock no. 7872) and 1 
November 1950 (stock no. 8083). Tooth Gallery 
archives, Box 25, Getty Research Institute. 

4 Tooth Gallery archives, Box 25, Getty Research 
Institute, lists owner and dates of consignment 
and sale. 


(back to entry) 

Felix Ziem 

(1821, Beaune-1911, Paris) 

Mermaids under Water, before 1870 
Oil on canvas, 14 14 x 26 in. (36.2 x 66 cm) 
Inscribed lower left: Esquisse du tableau 
LesSirenessous marines/a mon amiArsene/ 
Ziem/18/4 

Inscribed on the back: Projet decoration 
pour maison d’ArseneHoussaye aujourd’hui 
demolie (emplacement de la maison 
Durand-Ruel). 

The Ciechanowiecki Collection, 

Gift of The Ahmanson Foundation 
M.2000.179.42 


PROVENANCE 

Arsene Houssaye (1815-1896), Paris. 
Andrew S. Ciechanowiecki (1924-2015), 
London, by 1980, sold 2000 to; LACMA. 

EXHIBITIONS 

Peoria 1980, no. 50, ill.; American 
Federation of Arts 1994-95, no. 115, ill.; 
Omaha 2002-3, no. 50, ill. 

REFERENCE 
Miquel 1978, vol. 2, p. 23. 



201 


Appendix 




















LIST OF ARTISTS 


Algardi, Alessandro, volume i 
Avercamp, Hendrick, volume 3 
Baglione, Giovanni, volume 1 
Baratta, Giovanni, volume 1 
Fra Bartolomeo (Baccio della Porta), 

VOLUME 1 

Batoni, Pompeo, volume 1 
Beaufort, Jacques-Antoine, volume 2 
Bellini, Jacopo, volume 1 
Bernini, Gian Lorenzo, volume 1 
Berruguete, Alonso, volume 3 
Berruguete, Pedro, volume 3 
Berthelemy, Jean-Simon, volume 2 
Beyeren, Abraham van, volume 3 
Boeckhorst, Jan, volume 3 
Boilly, Louis-Leopold, volume 2 
Boucher, Frangois, volume 2 
Boulogne, Valentin de, volume 2 
Brenet, Nicolas-Guy, volume 2 
Buglioni, Santi, volume 1 
Cafa, Melchiorre, volume 1 
Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal), 
volume 1 

Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste, volume 2 
Carries, Jean-Joseph, volume 2 
Castiglione, Giovanni Benedetto, 
volume 1 

Chardin, Jean-Simeon, volume 2 
Cima da Conegliano, volume 1 
Claude Lorrain (Claude Gellee), volume 2 
Cortona, Pietro da (Pietro Berrettini), 

VOLUME 1 

Coypel, Antoine, volume 2 
Crespi, Daniele, volume 1 
David, Jacques-Louis, volume 2 
Deshays, Jean-Baptiste, volume 2 
Desportes, Alexandre-Frangois, volume 2 
Diaz de la Pena, Narcisse-Virgilio, 

VOLUME 2 

Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 

VOLUME 1 

Doyen, Gabriel-Frangois, volume 2 
Dubufe, Louis Edouard, volume 2 
Dyck, Anthony van, and assistants, 
volume 3 

Fabritius, Carel, volume 3 


Falguiere, Jean-Alexandre-Joseph, 

VOLUME 2 

Flandrin, Hippolyte-Jean, volume 2 
Fontana, Annibale, volume 1 
Fontana, Lavinia, volume 1 
Galloche, Louis, volume 2 
Gandolfi, Gaetano, volume 1 
Gandolfi, Ubaldo, volume 1 

Gerard, Baron Frangois-Pascal-Simon, 

volume 2 

Gerome, Jean-Leon, volume 2 
Giovanni di Paolo, volume 1 
Goltzius, Hendrik, volume 3 
Halle, Noel, volume 2 
Hals, Frans, volume 3 
Heem, Jan Davidsz. de, volume 3 
Heyden, Jan van der, volume 3 
Honthorst, Gerrit van, volume 3 
Houdon, Jean-Antoine, volume 2 
Jordaens, Jacob, volume 3 
Jouvenet, Jean, volume 2 
Koninck, Philips, and Adriaen 
van de Velde, volume 3 
La Hyre, Laurent de, volume 2 
La Tour, Georges de, volume 2 
Lafitte, Louis, volume 2 
Langlois, Jerome-Martin, volume 2 
Lastman, Pieter, volume 3 
Legros, Pierre, II, volume 2 
Lemoyne, Frangois, volume 2 
Lethiere, Guillaume, volume 2 
Lombard School, volume 1 
Lombardo, Ludovico, volume 1 
Loo, Carle van, volume 2 
Master of the Fiesole Epiphany, volume 1 
Mazzanti, Ludovico, volume 1 
Menageot, Frangois-Guillaume, volume 2 
Millet, Jean-Frangois, volume 2 
Moillon, Louise, volume 2 
Monet, Claude, volume 2 
Murillo, Bartolome Esteban, volume 3 
Natoire, Charles-Joseph, volume 2 
Pajou, Augustin, volume 2 
Parrocel, Joseph, volume 2 
Philippe de Champaigne, volume 2 


Picano, Francesco Antonio, volume 1 
Poerson, Charles, volume 2 
Preti, Mattia, volume 1 
Regnault, Jean-Baptiste, volume 2 
Rembrandt van Rijn, volume 3 
Reni, Guido, volume 1 
Restout, Jean-Bernard, volume 2 
Ricci, Sebastiano, volume 1 
Robert, Hubert, volume 2 
Rueda, Esteban de, volume 3 
Ruisdael, Jacob van, volume 3 
Sablet, Jacques, volume 2 
Saint-Ours, Jean-Pierre, volume 2 
Saraceni, Carlo, volume 1 
Scheffer, Ary, volume 2 
Snyders, Frans, volume 3 
Stamina, Gherardo, volume 1 
Steen, Jan, volume 3 
Subleyras, Pierre, volume 2 
Suvee, Joseph-Benoit, volume 2 
Sweerts, Michael, volume 3 
Tanzio da Varallo, volume 1 
Teniers, David, the Younger, 

and Jan Davidsz. de Heem, volume 3 
Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, volume 1 
Tiepolo, Giovanni Domenico, volume 1 
Titian (Tiziano Vecellio), volume 1 
Troyon, Constant, volume 2 
Tuby, Jean-Baptiste, I, volume 2 
Valenciennes, Pierre-Henri de, volume 2 
Vasari, Giorgio, volume 1 
Veronese, Paolo (Paolo Caliari), volume 1 
Vien, Joseph-Marie, volume 2 
Vincent, Frangois-Andre, volume 2 
Vouet, Simon, volume 2 
Vuillard, Edouard, volume 2 
Watteau, Jean-Antoine, volume 2 
Wtewael, Joachim Anthonisz., volume 3 
Ziem, Felix, volume 2 
Zoppo, Marco, volume 1 


202 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A 


Ackerman 1986 

Gerald M. Ackerman. The Life and Works of Jean-Leon 
Gerome. London and New York, 1986. 

“Acquisitions” 1978 

“L. A. County Art Museum Acquisitions.” National 
Sculpture Review 27, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 16. 

“Acquisitions” 1985 

“Acquisitions of Seventeenth-Century Art in 
American Museums: Supplement.” Burlington 
Magazine 127, no. 988 (July 1985): 489-92. 

Adhemar 1950 

Helene Adhemar. Watteau, sa vie, son oeuvre. Paris, 
1950. 

Adhemer 1972 

Helene Adhemar. “La Tour et les couvents lorrains.” 
Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th per., 80 (Oct. 1972): 219-22. 

Aitken and Delafond 2003 
Genevieve Aitken and Marianne Delafond. La 
collection d’estampes japonaises de Claude Monet. 
Lausanne, 2003. 

Ajaccio 2002 

Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnee et al. Les deux engloire: 
Paradis en trompe-Toeilpour la Rome baroque. Bozzetti, 
modelli, ricordi et memorie. Exh. cat., Musee Fesch, 
Ajaccio, 17 May-30 Sept. 2002. Ajaccio, 2002. 

Albuquerque 1980 

Peter Walch. French Eighteenth-Century Oil Sketches 
from an English Collection. New Mexico Studies in the 
Fine Arts 5. Exh. cat., University of New Mexico Art 
Museum, Albuquerque, 2 Mar-20 Apr. 1980. 
Albuquerque, 1980. 

Alexandre 1895 

Arsene Alexandre .Jean Carries, imagieretpotier. 

Paris, 1895. 

Alsina 2009 

Dominique Alsina. Louyse Moillon (Paris, vers 
1610-1696): La nature morte au Grand Sikle. Catalogue 
raisonne. Dijon, 2009. 

American Federation of Arts 1994-95 
Peter Walch et al. French Oil Sketches and the Academic 
Tradition: Selections from a Private Collection on Loan to 
the University Art Museum of the University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. Exh. cat., organized by the 
American Federation of Arts and exhibited at Mint 
Museum, Charlotte, NC, 14 Oct-11 Dec. 1994; 

Society of the Four Arts, Palm Beach, FL, 6 Jan.-5 
Feb. 1995; Arkansas Art Center, Little Rock, 2 Mar-4 
June 1995; Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory 
University, Atlanta, 22 Sept.-i9 Nov. 1995. New York, 
1994 - 


Ananoff and Wildenstein 1976 

Alexandre Ananoff and Daniel Wildenstein. Francois 

Boucher. 2 vols. Lausanne and Paris, 1976. 

Ananoff and Wildenstein 1980 

Alexandre Ananoff and Daniel Wildenstein. L’opera 

completa di Frangois Boucher. Milan, 1980. 

Ann Arbor-Dallas-Minneapolis 1998 

Charles Stuckey et al. Monet at Vetheuil: The Turning 
Point. Exh. cat.. University of Michigan Museum of 
Art, Ann Arbor, 25 Jan-15 Mar. 1998; Dallas Museum 
of Art, 28 Mar-17 May 1998; Minneapolis Institute 
of Arts, 30 May-26 July 1998. Ann Arbor, MI, 1998. 

Antal 1935 

Friedrich Antal. “Reflections on Classicism and 
Romanticism.” Burlington Magazine 66, no. 385 
(Apr. 1935): 159-68. 

“Acquisitions” 1978 

“L. A. County Art Museum Acquisitions.” National 
Sculpture Review 27, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 16. 

Arnason 1975 

H. Harvard Arnason. The Sculptures of Houdon. New 
York, 1975. 

Arts Council of Great Britain 1980-81 

Philip Conisbee. Paintingfrom Nature: The Tradition 
of Open-Air Oil Sketchingfrom the l/th to 19th Centuries. 
Exh. cat., organized by the Arts Council of Great 
Britain and exhibited at Fitzwilliam Museum, 
Cambridge, 25 Nov. 1980-11 Jan. 1981; Diploma 
Galleries, Royal Academy of Arts, London, 31 Jan- 
15 Mar. 1981. London, 1980. 


B 


Bailey 2002 

Colin B. Bailey. Patriotic Taste: Collecting Modern Art in 
Pre-Revolutionary Paris. New Haven and London, 2002. 

Baillio 2005 

Joseph Baillio. The Arts of Francefrom Frangois Ier to 
Napoleon ler.A Centennial Celebration of Wildenstein’s 
Presence in New York. New York, 2005. 

Bajou 1985 

Thierry Bajou. DeLa Tour. Paris, 1985. 

Bancel 2008 

Andre Bancel. Jean-Baptiste Deshays, 1/29-1/65. Paris, 
2008. 

Bardon 1963 

H. Bardon. “Les peintures a sujets antiques aux 
XVIIIeme siecle d’apres les livrets de salons.” Gazette 
des beaux-arts 61 (Apr. 1963): 217-50. 

Baud-Bovy and Boissonnas 1903 
Daniel Baud-Bovy and Frederic Boissonnas. Peintres 
genevois: Le Journal de Geneve, lere serie: i/oz-i8i/-Liotard, 
Huber, Saint-Ours, de la Rive. Geneva, 1903. 


Baudry 1978 

Marie-Therese Baudry, ed. La sculpture: Principes 
d’analysescientifique. Paris, 1978. 

Baxter 2006 

Denise Amy Baxter. “Two Brutuses: Violence, Virtue, 
and Politics in the Visual Culture of the French.” 
Eighteenth-Century Life 30, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 51-77. 

Beckett 2000 

Wendy Beckett. Sister Wendy’s American Collection. 

New York, 2000. 

Bellier de la Chavignerie and Auvray 1882-87 
Emile Bellier de la Chavignerie and Louis Auvray. 
Dictionnairegeneral des artistes de Tecolefrangaise. 5 vols. 
Paris, 1882-87. 

Bissell 1997 

Gerhard Bissell. Pierre Le Gros, 1666-1/19. Chippenham, 

1997. 

Bjurstrom 1984 

Per Bjurstrom. Watteau iNationalmuseum. Stockholm, 
1984. 

Blanc 1861-76 

Charles Blanc. Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles. 

14 vols. Paris, 1861-76. 

Blois 2008 

Helene Lebedel-Carbonnel. Catalogue des peintures du 
Musee du Chdteau de Blois XVIe-XVIIIe siecles. Catalogue 
accompanied the exhibition Peintres du Grand Siecle, 
Musee du Chateau de Blois, Blois, 15 Nov. 2008- 
20 Oct. 2009. Blois, 2008. 

Boime 1971 

Albert Boime. The Academy andFrenchPaintingin the 
Nineteenth Century. London, 1971. 

Boinet 1964 

Amedee Boinet. Les eglises parisiennes, XVIIe etXVIIIe 
siecles. Paris, 1964. 

Bonnaffe 1884 

Edmond Bonnaffe. Dictionnaire des amateurs frangais 
au XVIIe siecle. Paris, 1884. 

Bordeaux 1984 

Jean-Luc Bordeaux. Frangois Lemoyne and His 
Generation, 1688-1/3/. Paris, 1984. 

Bordes 1983 

Philippe Bordes. Le “Sermentdu Jeu dePaume” de 
Jacques-Louis David: Lepeintre, son milieu etson temps de 
1/86 a 1/92. Paris, 1983. 

Bordes 2006 

Philippe Bordes. “Jacques-Louis David in 1815.” 

Essay in brochure dedicated to the painting for 
a Christie’s sale. Paris, 22 June 2006. 

Boston 1999 

Franco Mormando, ed. Saints and Sinners: Caravaggio 
and the Baroque Image. Exh. cat., McMullen Museum 
of Art, Boston College, 1 Feb-24 May 1999. Chestnut 
Hill, MA, 1999. 


203 


Bibliography 








Bott 2001 

Gerhard Bott. Ein Stuck von allerleiBlumenwerk—tin 
Stuck von Fruchten—zwei Stuck aufTuch mitHecht: 

Die Stillebenmaler Soreau,Binoit, Codino undMurrell in 
Hanau undFranfurt, 1600-1650. Hanau, 2001. 

Bourcaud 1893 

Gustave Bourcaud. Dessins, gouaches, estampes et 
tableaux duXVIIIeme siecle. Paris, 1893. 

Bowron 1994-95 

Edgar Peters Bowron. “The Kress Brothers and Their 
‘Bucolic Pictures’: The Creation of an Italian 
Baroque Collection.” In A Gift to America: Masterpieces 
of European Painting from the Samuel Kress Collection, 
pp. 41-59. North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, 5 
Feb-24 Apr. 1994; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 

22 May-14 Aug. 1994; Seattle Art Museum, 15 
Sept.-2o Nov. 1994; Fine Arts Museums of San 
Francisco, 17 Dec. 1994-4 Mar. 1995. New York, 1995. 

Bozal 2005 

Valeriano Bozal. Luis Fernandez. Segovia, 2005. 

Brejon de Lavergnee 1982 

Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnee. “Four New Paintings 

by Vouet.” Burlington Magazine 124, no. 956 (Nov. 1982): 

685-89. 

Breme 1997 

Dominique Breme. Georges deLa Tour. Paris, 1997. 
Brescia 2004-5 

Marco Goldin. Monet: La senna, le ninfee. Ilgrande fiume 
e il nuovo secolo. Exh. cat., Museo di Santa Giulia, 
Brescia, Italy, 23 Oct. 2004-20 Mar. 2005. Brescia, 
2004. 

Bridgewater 1851 

Catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection ofPictures 
Belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere, at Bridgewater House, 
Cleveland Square, St. James’s, London. 4th ed. London, 
1851. 

Bridgewater 1856 

Catalogue of the Bridgewater Collection ofPictures 
Belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere, at Bridgewater House, 
Cleveland Square, St. James’s, London. 5th ed. London, 
1856. 

Bridgewater 1907 

Catalogue of the Bridgewater and Ellesmere Collections 
of Pictures and Statuary at Bridgewater House, Cleveland 
Square, St. James’s, London. London, 1907. 

Briere and Lamy 1953 

Gaston Briere and Marguerite Lamy. “Inventaires du 
logis de Simon Vouet dans la grande galerie du 
Louvre (1639 et 1640).” Memoires de la Federation des 
societes historiques et archeologiques de Paris et de 
l’Ile-de-F ranee 3 (1953): 117-72. 

Broeder 1967 

Frederick den Broeder. “The Lateran Apostles: The 
Major Sculpture Commission in Eighteenth- 
Century Rom e.” Apollo 85, no. 63 (May 1967): 360-65. 

Brommer 2005 

Gerald F. Brommer. Discovering Art History. Worcester, 
MA, 2005. 

Brookner 1980 

Anita Brookner .Jacques-Louis David. New York, 1980. 


Buchanan 1824 

William Buchanan. Memoirs of Painting: With a 
Chronological History of the Importation of Pictures by the 
Great Masters into England since the French Revolution. 

2 vols. London, 1824. 

Burckhardt [1977] 

Monica Burckhardt. Mobilier Moyen-Age, Renaissance. 
Paris, [1977]. 


c 


Cabinet de l’amateur 1842-46 
Eugene Piot, ed. Le cabinet de Tamateur et de 
I’antiquaire: Revue des tableaux etdes estampes anciennes. 
4 vols. Paris, 1842-46. 

Camiz 1991 

Franca Trinchieri Camiz. “Music and Painting in 
Cardinal del Monte’s Household.” Metropolitan 
Museum Journal 26 (1991): 213-26. 

Caroli 1996 

Flavio Caroli. Trentasette:Il mistero delgenio adolescente. 
Milan, 1996. 

Caviglia-Brunel 2004 

Susanna Caviglia-Brunel. “Des finalites du dessin 
chez Charles-Joseph Natoire (1700-1777).” Revue de 
l’art 143, no. 1 (2004): 35-48. 

Caviglia-Brunel 2011 

Susanna Caviglia-Brunel. “‘Reduit a nous hucher 
sur des portes’: La peinture d’histoire comme decor 
au XVIIIe siecle. Le declassement d’un genre?” 

In Classement, declassement, reclassement, ed. Gilles 
Chabaud, pp. 175-93. Limoges, 2011. 

Caviglia-Brunel 2012 

Susanna Caviglia-Brunel. Charles-Joseph Natoire, 
1700-1777. Paris, 2012. 

Cayeux 1985 

Jean de Cayeux. Les Hubert Robert de la collection Veyrenc 
au Musee de Valence. Valence, 1985. 

Cergy-Pontoise 2009 

Vaucresson: Du bourga la petite ville. Cergy-Pontoise, 
2009. 

Champier and Sandoz 1900 
Victor Champier and G.-Roger Sandoz. Le Palais- 
Royal d’apres des documents inedits (1629-1900). 2 vols. 
Paris, 1900. 

Chapel Hill 1978 

John Minor Wisdom et al. French Nineteenth-Century 
Oil Sketches: David to Degas. Exh. cat., The William 
Hayes Ackland Memorial Art Center, University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 5 Mar.-i8 Apr. 1978. 
Chapel Hill, NC, 1978. 

Chauvet 1997 

Jean-Pierre Chauvet. Georges de la Tour. Paris, 1997. 

Chiba-Okayama-Gifu-Osaka 1997 
Rainer Budde. Barbizon. Exh. cat., Chiba Sogo 
Museum, Chiba, Japan, 21 May-22 June 1997; 
Okayama Prefectural Museum of Art, 26 July-24 
Aug. 1997; The Museum of Fine Arts, Gifu, 30 
Aug-5 Oct. 1997; National Museum of Art, Osaka, 

10 Oct.-i6 Nov. 1997. Tokyo, 1997. 


Chone 1996 

Paulette Chone. Georges deLa Tour: Unpeintre lorrain au 
XVIIe siecle. Tournai, 1996. 

Christiansen 1990 

Keith Christiansen. Caravaggio Rediscovered: The Lute 
Player. New York, 1990. 

Christiansen 2009 

Keith Christiansen. A Caravaggio Rediscovered: The Lute 
Player. New York, 2009. 

“Chronique des arts” 1983 
“La chronique des arts: Principales acquisitions des 
musees en 1982.” Supplement to Gazette des beaux-arts, 
ser. 6,101 (Mar. 1983): 3-76. 

Clark 1964 

Anthony Clark. “Introduction to Pietro Bianchi.” 
Paragone 15, no. 169 (Jan. 1964): 42-47. 

Clark 1969 

Kenneth Clark. Civilization. New York, 1969. 
Cojannot-Le Blanc 2011 

Marianne Cojannot-Le Blanc. “La foi et les oeuvres: 
Postface sur l’oeuvre peint de Philippe de 
Champaigne et ses possibles liens avec la spiritualite 
de Port Royal.” In Philippe de Champaigne ou la figure 
du peintrejanseniste, ed. Marianne Cojannot-Le Blanc, 
pp. 171-216. Lecture critique des rapports entre Port 
Royal et les arts. Paris, 2011. 

Columbia 1965 

Two Hundred Years of the Arts of France. Exh. cat., 
Columbia Museum of Art, Columbia, SC, 21 Jam- 
28 Feb. 1965. Columbia, SC, 1965. 

Conforti 1977 

Michael Conforti. “The Lateran Apostles.” 2 vols. 

PhD diss., Harvard University, 1977. 

Conisbee 1986 

Philip Conisbee. Chardin. Oxford, 1986. 

Conisbee 1993 

Philip Conisbee. Masterpiece in Focus: The Magdalene 
with the Smoking Flame by Georges deLa Tour. Los 
Angeles, 1993. 

Conisbee 2004 

Philip Conisbee. “Reflections on Open-air Painting.” 
In Plein-airPainting in Europe, 1/80-1850, ed. Philip 
Conisbee, Sarah Faunce, and Yukitaka Kohari, pp. 10- 
19. Exh. cat., Shizuoka Prefectural Museum of Art, 
Shizouka, 22 June-15 Aug. 2004; Art Gallery of New 
South Wales, Sydney, 4 Sept-31 Oct. 2004; National 
Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, 19 Nov. 2004-16 Jan. 
2005. Shizuoka, 2004. 

Conisbee 2009 

Philip Conisbee, ed. French Paintings of the Fifteenth 
through theEighteenth Century. The Collection of the 
National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. 
Washington, DC, 2009. 

Conisbee, Levkoff, and Rand 1991 
Philip Conisbee, Mary L. Levkoff, and Richard Rand. 
TheAhmanson Gifts: European Masterpieces in the 
Collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 

Los Angeles, 1991. 


204 


“Correction: Notable Works of Art” i960 
“Correction: Notable Works of Art Now on the 
Market. Supplement.” Burlington Magazine 102, 
no. 691 (Oct. i960): 462. 

Costello 1950 

Jane Costello. “The Twelve Pictures ‘Ordered by 
Velazquez’ and the Trial of Valguarnera .” Journal of 
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, no. 3/4 (Jan. 
1950): 237-84. 

Cox-Rearick 1995 

Janet Cox-Rearick. The Collection of Francis I: Royal 
Treasures. Antwerp and New York, 1995. 

Cox-Rearick 1997 

Janet Cox-Rearick. “Imagining the Renaissance: 

The Nineteenth-Century Cult of Francois I as Patron 
of Art.” Renaissance Quarterly 50, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 
207-50. 

Crelly 1962 

William R. Crelly. The Painting of Simon Vouet. 

New Haven and London, 1962. 

Cremona-Vienna 2000-2001 
Sylvia Ferino-Pagden. Dipingere la musica: Strumenti 
inposa nell’arte del Cinque eSeicento. Exh. cat., Santa 
Maria della Pieta, Cremona, 12 Dec. 2000-18 Mar. 2001; 
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Palais Harrach, Vienna, 
4 Apr.-i July 2001. Milan, 2000. 

Cuzin 1975 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. “Problemes du Caravagisme: 

Pour Valentin.” Revue de Tart 28, no. 4/5 (1975): 53-61. 

Cuzin 1980 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. “Manfredi’s Fortune Teller and 
Some Problems of‘Manfrediana Methodus.’” 

Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 58, no. 1 (1980): 

14-25- 

Cuzin 1987 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. “Un chef d’oeuvre avorte de 
Simon Vouet: Le Saint Pierre et les maladies commande 
pour Saint Pierre de Rome.” In “Il se rendit en Italie”: 
Etudes offertes ci Andre Chastel, pp. 359-70. Paris and 
Rome, 1987. 

Cuzin 1996 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. “Georges de La Tour, un 
caravagesque suspect: Reflexions a l’occasion de 
l’exposition de Washington.” Le journal des arts, no. 31 
(Dec. 1996): 22-23. 

Cuzin 2010 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. Figures de la realite. Paris, 2010. 
Cuzin and Salmon 1997 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin and Dimitri Salmon. Georges deLa 
Tour: Histoire d’une redecouverte. Paris, 1997. 


D 


Dacier 1909-21 

Emile Dacier. Catalogues de ventes et livrets de salons 
illustrespar Gabriel de Saint-Aubin. 11 parts in 6 vols. 
Paris, 1909-21. 

Dacier and Vuaflart 1921-29 

Emile Dacier and Albert Vuaflart. Jean dejullienne et 

lesgraveurs de Watteau au XVIIIeme siecle. 4 vols. Paris, 

1921-29. 


Dandre-Bardon 1765 

Michel Dandre-Bardon. Viede Carle Vanloo. Paris, 1765. 
David 1880-82 

Jacques-Louis Jules David. Le peintre Louis David, 
1/48-1825. 2 vols. Paris, 1880-82. 

Davies 1957 

Martin Davies. French School. National Gallery 
Catalogues. London, 1957. 

Dayton-Baltimore 1965-66 
Leonard Slatkes. Hendrick Terbrugghen in America. Exh. 
cat., Dayton Art Institute, OH, 15 Oct-28 Nov. 1965; 
Baltimore Museum of Art, 19 Dec. 1965-30 Jan. 1966. 
Introduction by Wolfgang Stechow. Dayton, OH, 1965. 

Delaplanche 2006 

Jerome Delaplanche .Joseph Parrocel, 1646-1/04: La 
nostalgie de I’herotsme. Paris, 2006. 

Deloynes 1881 

Jean-Charles Deloynes. Collection de pieces sur les beaux- 
arts, imprimees et manuscrites, recueillies parPierre-Jean 
Mariette, Charles-Nicolas Cochin etM. Deloynes. 65 vols. 
Paris, 1881. 

Desmas 2004 

Anne-Lise Desmas. “Why Legros Rather than Foggini 
Carved the ‘St. Bartholomew’ for the Lateran: New 
Documents for the Statue in the Nave.” Burlington 
Magazine 146, no. 1221 (Dec. 2004): 796-805. 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1749 
Antoine-Nicolas Dezaillier d’Argenville. Voyage 
pittoresque de Paris; ou Indication de tout ce qu’ily a deplus 
beau dans cettegrande Ville en Peinture, Sculpture, et 
Architecture. Paris, 1749. 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1757 
Antoine-Nicolas Dezailler d’Argenville. Voyage 
pittoresque. 3rd ed. Paris, 1757. 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1762 

Antoine-Nicolas Dezailler d’Argenville. Abrege de la 

vie des plusfameuxpeintres. Rev. ed. Paris, 1762. 

Dezallier d’Argenville 1791 
Antoine-Nicolas Dezallier d’Argenville. Explication et 
critique impartiale de toutes lespeintures ... exposees au 
Louvre. Paris, 1791. 

Diderot 1984 

Denis Diderot. Diderot: Essais sur la peinture. Salons de 
1759,1/61,1/63. Ed. Gita May and Jacques Chouillet. 
Paris, 1984. 

Diderot 1995 

Denis Diderot. Diderot on Art. Ed. and trans. John 
Goodman. 2 vols. London and New Haven, 1995. 

Dimier 1928-30 

Louis Dimier. Les peintresfrangais du XVIIIe siecle: 
Histoire des vies et catalogue des oeuvres. 2 vols. Paris and 
Brussels, 1928-30. 

Dorival 1972 

Bernard Dorival. “Recherches sur les sujets sacres et 
allegoriques graves au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siecle 
d’apres Philippe de Champaigne.” Gazette des 
beaux-arts 80, no. 1242/43 (July-Aug. 1972): 5-60. 


Dorival 1976 

Bernard Dorival. Philippe de Champaigne: La vie, 

Toeuvre, et le catalogue raisonne de l’oeuvre. 2 vols. Paris, 
1976. 

Dorival 1992 

Bernard Dorival. Supplement au catalogue raisonne de 
l’oeuvre de Philippe de Champaigne. Paris, 1992. 

Duisberg-Karlsruhe-Gotha-Paris 1989 

Guilhem Scherf. Skulptur aus dem Louvre: 89 Werke des 
franzosischen Klassizismus, 1770-1830. Exh. cat., Wilhelm- 
Lehmbruck-Museum, Duisberg; Prinz-Max-Palais, 
Karlsruhe; Schlossmuseum, Gotha; Musee du 
Louvre, Paris, 1989-90. Duisberg and Karlsruhe, 1989. 

Du Pont de Nemours 1908 
Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours. “Lettres sur les 
Salons de 1773,1777, et 1779, addressees par Du Pont 
de Nemors a la Margravine Caroline-Louise de Bade.” 
Archives de l’artfran$ais, 4th ser., 2 (1908): 1-123. 

Dussieux et al. 1854 

L. Dussieux, E. Soulie, Ph. de Chennevieres, P. Mantz, 
and A. de Montaiglon. Memoires inedits sur la vie et 
les ouvrages des membres de I’AcademieRoyale de peinture 
et de sculpture, publies d’apres les manuscrits conserves 
a I’ecolelmperialedesBeaux-Arts. 2 vols. Paris, 1854. 


E 


Edinburgh 2003 

Michael Clarke and Richard Thomson. Monet: 

The Seine and the Sea, 18/8-1883. Exh. cat., National 
Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh, 6 Aug-26 Oct. 
2003. Edinburgh, 2003. 

Eidelberg 2017 

Martin Eidelberg. “L’Accord parfait.” A Watteau 
Abecedario. Entered Mar. 2014, revised Aug. 2017. 
http://watteau-abecedario.org/accpooi.htm. 

Engerand 1901 

Fernand Engerand. Inventaire des tableaux commandes 
et achetespar la Direction des Bdtiments du Roi (1/09-1/92). 
Paris, 1901. 

Enggass 1976 

Robert Enggass. Early Eighteenth Century Sculpture in 
Rome. 2 vols. London and University Park, PA, 1976. 

Ewals 1987 

Leo Ewals. “Ary Scheffer: Sa vie et son oeuvre.” PhD 
diss.. Catholic University of Nijmegen, The 
Netherlands, 1987. 


F 


Fader 2007 

Don Fader. “Philippe II d’Orleans’s ‘chanteurs italiens,’ 
the Italian Cantata and the gouts-reunis under Louis 
XIV.” Early Music 35, no. 2 (2007): 237-50. 

Fare 1974 

Michel Fare. Le grand siecle de la nature morte en France, 
le XVIIe siecle. Fribourg and Paris, 1974. 

Fare 1995 

Fabrice Fare, ed. Les Salons deBachaumont. Paris, 1995. 


205 


Bibliography 








Fenaille 1901 

Maurice Fenaille. Etatgeneral des tapisseries de la 
manufacture des Gobelins depuis son originejusqu’a nos 
jours, 1600-1900. Vol. 4, Periode du dix-huitieme siecle. 
Deuxiemepartie, 1737-1794. Paris, 1901. 

Fenton 2017 

James Fenton. "Learning to Love French Art.” New 
York Review of Books 64, no. 13 (Aug. 17,2017): 31-33. 

Ferrara-Madrid 2010-11 

Pierre Rosenberg. Chardin: Ilpittore del silenzio. Exh. 
cat., Palazzo dei Diamanti, Ferrara, 17 Oct. 2010- 
30 Jan. 2011; Museo del Prado, Madrid, 28 Feb-29 May 
2011. Ferrara, 2010. 

Ferrari 1990 

Oreste Ferrari. Bozetti italiani dal manierismo al Barocco. 
Naples, 1990. 

Ferre et al. 1972 

Jean Ferre et al. Watteau. 4 vols. Madrid, 1972. 
Flament 1908 

Albert Flament. "La collection Groult.” Suppl. to 
L’illustration, 18 Jan. 1908. 

Florence 1969 

Galerie Joseph Hahn. Exh. cat., undated. Florence, 
1969. Florence, 1969. 

Florisoone 1948 

Michel Florisoone. La peinturefrangaise: Le dix-huitieme 
siecle. Paris, 1948. 

Fontaine 1910 

Andre Fontaine, ed. Comte de Caylus: Vies d’artistes du 
XVIIIe siecle. Discours sur la peinture et la sculpture, Salons 
de 1751 et de 1753—Lettre a Lagrenee. Paris, 1910. 

Fontenay 1786-1808 

E. de Fontenay. Galerie du Palais Royal grave d’apres 
les tableaux des differentes ecoles qui la composent. 3 vols. 
Paris, 1786-1808. 

Fort Worth-Washington 1995-96 
Susan L. Siegfried. The Art of Louis-Leopold Boilly: 
Modern Life in Napoleonic France. Exh. cat., Kimbell Art 
Museum, Fort Worth, 5 Nov. 1995-14 Jan. 1996; 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 4 Feb- 
28 Apr. 1996. New Haven, 1995. 

Fort Worth-San Francisco-Lens 2016-17 

The Brothers Le Nain: Painters of17th-Century France. 

Exh. cat., Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 22 
May-11 Sept. 2016; Fine Arts Museums of 
San Francisco, 8 Oct. 2016-29 Jan. 2017; Musee du 
Louvre-Lens, 22 Mar-26 June 2017. San Francisco, 
2016. 

Francis 2002 

Jane Francis. “The Three Graces: Composition and 
Meaning in a Roman Context.” Greece &Rome 49, 
no. 2 (Oct. 2002): 180-98. 

Fredericksen 1988-90 

Burton B. Fredericksen, ed. The Index of Paintings Sold 
in the British Isles during the 19th Century. 2 vols. Santa 
Barbara and Oxford, 1988-90. 


G 


Gaehtgens and Lugand 1988 

Thomas Gaehtgens and Jacques Lugand .Joseph-Marie 

Vien, 1716-1809. Paris, 1988. 

Gamier 1989 

Nicole Gamier. Antoine Coypel (1661-1722). Paris, 1989. 
Gash 2009 

John Gash. “Triumph in Rome.” Apollo 169, no. 564 
(Apr. 2009): 69-70. 

Geneva 1974 

Renee Loche in collaboration with the Hermitage. 

De Geneve a I’Ermitage: Les collections de Francois 
Tronchin. Exh. cat., Musee Rath, Geneva, 21 June- 
15 Sept. 1974. Geneva, 1974. 

Geneva 2015-16 

Anne de Herdt .Jean-PierreSaint-Ours: Unpeintre 
genevois dans I’Europe desLumieres. Exh. cat., Musees 
d’Art et d’Histoire de Geneve, Geneva, 25 Sept. 2015- 
28 Feb. 2016. Geneva and Neuchatel, 2015. 

Germain 2005 

Sylvie Germain. Ateliers de lumiere. Paris, 2005. 
Giacometti 1929 

Georges Giacometti. La vie et Voeuvre de J.-A. Houdon. 

2 vols. Paris, 1929. 

Girodet-Trioson 1829 

Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson. Oeuvres posthumes de 
Girodet-Trioson. 2 vols. Paris, 1829. 

Glasgow-Sheffield-Amsterdam 1991-92 
Belinda Thomson. Vuillard. Exh. cat., organized by 
the South Bank Centre, London, and exhibited at 
Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow, 

7 Sept-20 Oct. 1991; Graves Art Gallery, Sheffield, 

26 Oct-18 Dec. 1991; Van Gogh Museum, 
Amsterdam, 9 Jan.-8 Mar. 1992. London, 1991. 

Glorieux 2011 

Guillaume Glorieux. Watteau. Paris, 2011. 

Goncourt 1875 

Edmond de Goncourt. Catalogue raisonne de Toeuvre 
peint, dessine et grave d’Antoine Watteau. Paris, 1875. 

Grenoble-Rennes-Bordeaux 1989-90 
Pierre Rosenberg and Jacques Thuillier. Laurent de La 
Hyre, 1606-1656: L’homme et Voeuvre. Exh. cat., Musee 
de Grenoble, 14 Jan.-io Apr. 1989; Musee de Rennes, 
9 May-31 Aug. 1989; Musee de Bordeaux, 6 Oct. 
1989-6 Jan. 1990. Geneva, 1989. 

Groom 1990 

Gloria Groom. “Landscape as Decoration: Edouard 
Vuillard’s Ile-de-France Paintings for Adam 
Natanson.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 16, 
no. 2 (1990): 146-65,180-82. 

Grouchy and Guiffrey 1892 

Vicomte de Grouchy and Jules Guiffrey. “Les peintres 

Philippe et Jean-Baptiste de Champaigne: Nouveaux 

documents et inventaires apres deces communiques 

par M. le Vicomte de Grouchy et annotes par M. J. 

Guiffrey.” Nouvelles archives de l’artfran$ais 8 (1892): 

172-218. 


Guiderdoni-Brusle 2007 
Agnes Guiderdoni-Brusle. “Franz von Sales: 
Ikonographie in Kupferstiche des 17 und 18 
Jahrhunderts.” International Commission for Salesian 
Studies Newsletter 20 (July-Aug. 2007): 1-6. 

Gustin-Gomez 1993 

Clementine Gustin-Gomez. “Charles Poerson, 
1609-1667.” Master’s thesis, University of Paris IV 
Sorbonne, 1993. 


H 


Hannover 1888 

Emil Hannover. “Degalantefesters maler”: Antoine 
Watteau, bans liv, bans vaerk, bans tid. Copenhagen, 
1888. 

Hartje-Grave 2004 

Nicole Hartje-Grave. Bartholomeo Manfredi (1582-1622): 
Ein Nachfolger Caravaggios und seine europaische Wirkung. 
Monographie und Werkverzeichnis. Weimar, 2004. 

Hebert (1767) 1992 

Cesar-Auguste Hebert. Dictionnaire pittoresque et 
historique de Paris et de ses environs avec le catalogue 
des plus celebres artistes anciens et modernes et leurs vies. 

2 vols. Paris, 1767. Reprint, Geneva, 1992. 

Hedouin 1845 

Pierre E. A. Hedouin. “Watteau: Catalogue de son 
oeuvre.” L’artiste (Paris), Nov. 16,23, and 30,1845. 

Hedouin 1856 

Pierre E. A. Hedouin. Mosaique: Peintres-musiciens- 
litterateurs-artistes dramatiques, dpartir du 15c siecle 
jusqu’d nos jours. Paris, 1856. 

Hegner 1805 

U. Hegner. “Uber die Ausstellung zu Bern von Herrn 
U. Hegner in Winterthur.” Journal fur Literatur und 
Kunst (Zurich) (1805): 40-43. 

Heim, Beraud, and Heim 1989 
J. F. Heim, Claire Beraud, and Philippe Heim. Les 
Salons de peinture de la Revolutionfrangaise, 1789-1799. 
Paris, 1989. 

Herbert 1972 

Robert L. Herbert. David, Voltaire, Brutus, and the 
French Revolution. London, 1972. 

Herbert 1980 

Robert Herbert. “La laitiere normande a Greville de 
J. F. Millet.” La revue du Louvre et des musees de France 30 
(Feb. 1980): 14-20. 

Herbert 2001 

James D. Herbert. “A Picture of Chardin’s Making.” 
Eighteenth Century Studies 34, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 
251 - 74 . 

Herzog 1989 

Gunther Herzog. Hubert Robert und das Bild im Garten. 
Worms, 1989. 

Honour 1979 

Hugh Honour. Romanticism. London, 1979. 


206 


Hoog i960 

Michel Hoog. “Attributions anciennes a Valentin.” 
Revue des arts 10, no. 6 (June i960): 267-78. 

Horaist 1979 

Bruno Horaist. “Hippolyte Flandrin a Saint- 
Germain-des Pres.” Bulletin de la Societe de I’histoire de 
l’artfran$ais, 1979 (1981): 111-232. 

Houssaye 1895 

Arsene Houssaye. Souvenirs dejeunesse, 1850-1870. Paris, 

1895- 

Houston and other cities 1973-75 
J. Patrice Marandel. French Oil Sketches from an English 
Collection: Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth 
Centuries. Exh. cat., Museum of Fine Arts, Houston; 
Indianapolis Museum of Art; J. B. Speed Museum, 
Louisville, KY; Rhode Island School of Design 
Museum of Art, Providence; Elvehjem Art Center, 
Madison, WI; University Art Gallery, State 
University of New York at Binghamton; Cummer 
Gallery of Art, Jacksonville, FL; Minneapolis 
Institute of Arts, 1973-75. Houston, 1975. 


j 


Jacksonville 1961 

Masterpieces of French Painting through Two and a Half 
Centuries. Exh. cat., Cummer Art Gallery. Jacksonville, 
FL, 10 N0V.-31 Dec. 1961. Jacksonville, FL, 1961. 

Jameson 1844 

Anna Jameson. Companion to the Most Celebrated 
Private Galleries of Art in London. London, 1844. 

Jeromack 2002 

Paul Jeromack. “High Taste, Low Budget.” Art & 
Auction (Feb. 2002): 84-93. 

Join-Lambert and Leclair 2017 

Sophie Join-Lambert and Anne Leclair. Joseph-Benoit 

Suvee (1743-1807). Paris, 2017. 

Dejoinville 1955 

Jean de Joinville. The Life of St. Louis by John ofjoinville. 
Trans. Rene Hague, from the text ed. by Natalis de 
Wailly. New York, 1955. 

Judovitz 2018 

Dalia Judovitz. Georges de la Tour and the Enigma of the 
Visible. New York, 2018. 


K 


Kolb 1937 

Marthe Kolb . Ary Scheffer et son temps, 1795-1858. Paris, 
1937 - 

Kremer 2017 

Elmar Kremer. “Antoine Arnauld.” In The Stanford 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, 
summer 2017 edition, https://plato.stanford.edu 
/archives/sum2oi7/entries/arnauld. 


L 


De Laborde 1870 

Henri de Laborde. Ingres: Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine 
d’apres les notes manuscrites et des letters du maitre. Paris, 
1870. 

La Live de Jully 1764 and 1770 
Ange-Laurent de La Live de Jully. A Facsimile Reprint of 
“Catalogue historique” (1764) and “Catalogue raisonne des 
tableaux” (1770). Introductory essay and concordance 
by Colin B. Bailey. New York, 1988. 

Lami 1910-11 

Stanislas Lami. Dictionnaire des sculpteurs de I’ecole 
fran^aiseau dix-huitieme siecle. 2 vols. Paris, 1910-11. 

Landon 1803-20 

Ch. P. Landon. Vies et oeuvres des peintres les plus celebres 
de toutes les ecoles. 25 vols. Paris, 1803-20. 

Lanvin 1967 

C. Lanvin. “Hippolyte Flandrin.” 3 vols. Master’s 
thesis, Ecole du Louvre, Paris, 1967. 

Lastic 1974 

Georges de Lastic. “Les ‘Graces’ de Carle Van Loo.” 
Bulletin de la Societe de I’histoire de I’artfrangais, 1973 
(i 974 ): 193 - 98 . 

Lastic and Jacky 2010 

Georges de Lastic and Pierre Jacky. Desportes. 2 vols. 
Chateau de Saint-Remy-en l’Eau, 2010. 

Le Floch 1995 

Jean-Claude Le Floch. Le signe de contradiction: Essai sur 
Georges deLaTouretson oeuvre. Rennes, 1995. 

Lee 1969 

Virginia Lee. “Jacques-Louis David: The Versailles 
Sketchbook, II.” Burlington Magazine 111, no. 785 
(June 1969): 360-69. 

Leeuwenberg and Halsema-Kubes 1973 
Jaap Leeuwenberg and Willy Halsema-Kubes. 
Beeldhouwkunst in hetRijksmuseum. Amsterdam, 1973. 

Lejeune 1863-64 

Theodore Michel Lejeune. Guide theorique et pratique 
de Tamateur de tableaux. 2 vols. Paris, 1863-64. 

Lemagny 1968 

Jean-Claude Lemagny. Visionary Architects: Boullee, 
Ledoux, Lequeu. Houston, 1968. 

Lesur and Aaron 2009 

Nicolas Lesur and Olivier Aaron. Jean-Baptiste-Marie 
Pierre, 1714-1789, Premier peintredu roi. Paris, 2009. 

Lille 1968 

Antoine Schnapper. Au temps du Roi Soleil: Les peintres 
de Louis XIV. Exh. cat., Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille, 

24 Feb.-30 Apr. 1968. Lille, 1968. 

Lille 1988-89 

Annie Scottez-de Wambrechies, Sylvain Laveissiere, 
and Susan Siegfried. Boilly, 1761-1845: Ungrandpeintre 
fran$ais de la Revolution a la Restauration. Exh. cat., 
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille, 23 Oct. 1988-9 Jan. 1989. 
Paris, 1988. 

Lille 2011-12 

Annie Scottez-de Wambrechies and Florence 
Raymond, eds. Boilly (1761-1845). Exh. cat., Palais des 
Beaux-Arts, Lille, 4 Nov. 2011-5 Feb. 2012. Lille, 2011. 


Loire 2011 

Stephane Loire. “Simon Vouet en Italie (1612-1627): 
Questions d’attributions et de datations.” In Simon 
Vouet en Italie, ed. Olivier Bonfait and Helene 
Rousteau-Chambon, pp. 183-233. Rennes, 2011. 

London 1951 

A Collection of Pictures Recently Purchased in France. Exh. 
cat., Tooth & Sons, London, 11 Apr-11 May 1951. 
London, 1951. 

London 1954-55 

European Masters of the Eighteenth Century. Exh. cat., 
Royal Academy of Arts, London, 27 Nov. 1954-27 Feb. 
1955. London, 1954. 

London 1956 

Summer Exhibition of Pictures by Old Masters, Including a 
Group on Loan from Lockinge Collection. Exh. cat., Thos. 
Agnew and Sons, Inc., London, 6 June-21 July 1956. 
London, 1956. 

London 1968 

Denys Sutton. France in the Eighteenth Century. Exh. 
cat., Royal Academy of Arts, London, 4 Jan.-3 Mar. 
1968. London, 1968. 

London 1972 

The Age ofNeo-Classicism: A Handlist to the Fourteenth 
Exhibition of the Council of Europe [Held at] the Royal 
Academy and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 
Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts and Victoria and 
Albert Museum, London, 9 Sept-19 Nov. 1972. 
London, 1972. 

London 1979 

Adrian Ward-Jackson Ltd. A Selection of French 
Paintings and Drawings. Exh. cat., Adrian Ward- 
Jackson Ltd., 1979. London, 1979. 

London 1983 

Trafalgar Galleries at the Royal Academy, III. Exh. cat., 
Trafalgar Galleries, 1983. London, 1983. 

London-Rome 2001 

Beverly Louise Brown, ed. The Genius of Rome: 
1592-1623. Exh. cat.. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 
20 Jan.-i6 Apr. 2001; Palazzo Venezia, Rome, 
May-Aug. 2001. London, 2001. 

Longhi 1958 

Roberto Longhi. “Apropos de Valentin.” La revue des 
arts 8, no. 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1958): 59-66. 

Los Angeles 1980 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art Report, July 1, 
i977~June3o, 1979. Los Angeles, 1980. 

Los Angeles 1983 

“Recent Acquisitions: European Paintings.” Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art Members’ Calendar 21, no. 

8 (Aug. 1983): n.p. 

Los Angeles 1991 

“Recent Acquisitions: European Paintings.” Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art Members’ Calendar 29, no. 
7/8 (July-Aug. 1991): n.p. 

Los Angeles 1987 

Scott Schaefer and Peter Fusco, with assistance of 
Paula-Teresa Wiens. European Paintings and Sculpture 
in theLos Angeles County Museum of Art: An Illustrated 
Summary Catalogue. Los Angeles, 1987. 


207 


Bibliography 









Los Angeles 2001 

French Eighteenth-Century Oil Sketches. Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art, 2 Aug-28 Oct. 2001. No 
exh. cat. 

Los Angeles 2001-2 

Barbara Maria Stafford and Frances Terpak, with an 
object list by Isotta Poggi. Devices of Wonder: From the 
World in a Box to Images on a Screen. Exh. cat., J. Paul 
Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 13 Nov. 2001-6 Feb. 
2002. Los Angeles, 2001. 

Los Angeles 2003 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art. World of Art. New York, 2003. 

Los Angeles 2006 

J. Patrice Marandel and Claudia Einecke, eds. Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art, European Art. Los 
Angeles, 2006. 

Los Angeles 2006-7 

Jacques Louis David: “Portrait of Jean Pierre Delahaye,” 
a Rediscovered Masterpiece. Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, 19 Oct. 2006-21 Jan. 2007. No exh. cat. 

Los Angeles 2008-9 

Sur le motif: Painting in Nature around 1800. J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Los Angeles, 23 Sept. 2008-8 Mar. 2009. 

No exh. cat. 

Los Angeles-Hartford 2012-13 

Bodies and Shadows: Caravaggio and His Legacy. Exh. cat., 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 11 Nov. 2012- 
10 Feb. 2013; Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, CT, 

8 Mar-16 June 2013. Exhibited in Hartford as Burst 
of Light: Caravaggio and His Legacy. Los Angeles, 2012. 

Los Angeles-New York-Washington 1990-91 
Philip Conisbee. Soap Bubbles byJean-Simeon Chardin. 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 18 Oct. 1990-20 
Jan. 201991; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, 19 Feb.-6 June 1991; National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, 30 June-2 Sept. 1991. Los Angeles, 
1990. Brochure only. 

Lossky 1967 

Boris Lossky. “Leonard de Vinci mourant dans les 
bras de Frangois Ier—peinture de Frangois- 
Guillaume Menageot au Musee de l’Hotel de Ville 
d’Amboise.” Bulletin de 1 ’Association Leonard de Vinci, 
no. 6 (June 1967): 43-52. 


M 


Macchia and Montagni 1968 

Giovanni Macchia and Ettore C. Montagni. L’opera 

completa di Watteau. Milan, 1968. 

Madrid 2016 

Dimitri Salmon and Andres Ubeda de los Cobos, eds. 
Georges deLa Tour. Exh. cat., Museo del Prado, Madrid, 
23 Feb.-i2 June 2016. Madrid, 2016. 

Malgouyres 2011 

Philippe Malgouyres. “Charles Mellin et Simon 
Vouet en Italie.” In Simon Voueten Italie, ed. Olivier 
Bonfait and Helene Rousteau-Chambon, pp. 69-84. 
Rennes, 2011. 

Mansfield 2012 

Elisabeth C. Mansfield. The Perfect Foil: Francois Andre 
Vincent and the Revolution in French Painting. 
Minneapolis, 2012. 


Marandel 1980 

J. Patrice Marandel. “The Death of Camille: 
Guillaume-Guillon Lethiere and the 1785 Prix de 
Rome.” Antologia di belle arti 4, no. 13/14 (1980): 12-17. 

Marandel 1989 

J. Patrice Marandel. “The 10th of August, 1792.” In New 
York 1989, p. 223. 

Marandel 2001 

J. Patrice Marandel. “Quelques notes sur un tableau 
meconnu de Watteau.” In Melanges en hommage a 
Pierre Rosenberg: Peintures et dessins en France et en Italie, 
XVIIe-XVIIIe siecles, ed. Anna Ottani Cavina, pp. 284- 
87. Paris, 2001. 

Marandel 2017 

J. Patrice Marandel. Abecedario: Collecting and 
Recollecting. Los Angeles, 2017. 

Martin 1994 

Elisabeth Martin. “Dossiers scientifiques et reperes 
chronologiques.” In Georges deLa Tourou La nuit 
traversee: Colloque organise ci Vic-sur-Seille, du9 au 11 
septembre 1993, a Voccasion du IVe centenaire de la 
naissance de Georges deLa Tour, Vic-sur-Seille, 1993, ed. 
Anne Reinbold, pp. 17-28. Metz, 1994. 

Mathey 1959 

Jacques Mathey. Antoine Watteau: Peintures reapparues, 
inconnues ou negligees par les historiens. Paris, 1959. 

Mayer 1969 

Ralph Mayer. A Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques. 
New York, 1969. 

Mckee 1941 

Kenneth McKee. “Voltaire’s Brutus during the 
French Revolution.” Modem Language Notes 56, no. 2 
(Feb. 1941): 100-106. 

Metz 1997 

Barbara Brejon de Lavergnee et al. Charles Poerson, 
1609-1667. Exh. cat., Musee de La Cour d’Or, Metz, 
1997. Paris, 1997. 

Mexico City 1994 

Francois Desportes: Pintorfrances del siglo XVII, obra de la 
coleccion de Sevres (1661-1743). Exh. cat., Centro 
Cultural/Arte Contemporaneo, Mexico City, 14 July- 
18 Sept. 1994. Mexico City, 1994. 

Miquel 1978 

Pierre Miquel. FelixZiem, 1821-1911. 2 vols. 
Maurs-la-Jolie, 1978. 

Mirimonde 1961 

A. P. de Mirimonde. “Sujets musicaux chez Watteau.” 
Gazette des beaux-arts 58 (Nov. 1961): 249-88. 

Mirimonde 1965 

A. P. de Mirimonde. “Portraits de musiciens et 
concerts de l’ecole frangaise dans les collections 
nationales.” La revue du Louvre et des musees de France 15, 
no. 4/5 (1965): 209-28. 

Mojana 1989 

Marina Mojana. Valentin de Boulogne. Milan, 1989. 
Montaiglon 1875 

Anatole de Montaiglon. “Le Salon de 1875.” 2nd 
article. Gazette des beaux-arts 11 (1875): 489-521. 

Montaiglon 1875-92 

Anatole de Montaiglon. Proces-verbaux de I’Academie 
Roy ale de peinture et de sculpture, 1648-1793, d’apres 
les registres originaux conserves a I’Ecole des Beaux-Arts. 

10 vols. Paris, 1875-92. 


Montpellier-Grenoble 2007-8 
Frangoise Cachin and Elizabeth Rohatyn. 
LTmpressionnisme de France et d’Amerique. Exh. cat., 
Musee Fabre, Montpellier, 1 June-29 Sept. 2007; 
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Grenoble, Switzerland, 19 
Oct. 2007-20 Jan. 2008. Versailles, 2007. 

Montpellier-Lausanne 2013-14 
Michel Hilaire, Sylvie Wuhrmann, and Olivier Zeder. 
Le gout de Diderot: Greuze, Chardin, Falconet, David. Exh. 
cat., Musee Fabre, Montpellier, 5 Oct. 2013-12 Jan. 
2014; Fondation de l’Hermitage, Lausanne, 7 Feb.- 
1 June 2014. Paris, 2013. 

Montpellier-Toulouse 2012 
Michel Hilaire and Axel Hemery, eds. Corps et 
ombres-Caravage et le Caravagisme europeen. Exh. cat., 
Musee Fabre, Montpellier, and Musee des Augustins, 
Toulouse, 23 June-14 October 2012. Milan, 2012. See 
also Los Angeles-Hartford 2012-13. 

Montreal-Rennes-Montpellier 1993 

Century of Splendor: Seventeenth-Century French Painting 
in French Public Collections. Exh. cat.. Museum of Fine 
Arts, Montreal, 21 Jan-28 Mar. 1993; Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Rennes, 14 Apr-20 June 1993; Musee 
Fabre, Montpellier, 1 July-5 Sept. 1993. Montreal, 
1993 - 

Moreau-Nelaton 1921 

Etienne Moreau-Nelaton. Millet racontepar lui-meme. 

3 vols. Paris, 1921. 

Mosco 1986 

Marilena Mosco, ed. La Maddalena tra sacro e profane. 
Florence, 1986. 

Moulin 1983 

Monique Moulin. “Frangois Gerard, peintre du 10 
aout 1792.” Gazette des beaux-arts 101 (May-June 1983): 
197-202. 

Muchnic 2015 

Suzanne Muchnic. LACMA So Far: Portrait of a Museum 
in the Making. San Marino, CA, 2015. 


N 


Nancy-Caen 2007 

Philippe Malgouyres. Charles Mellin, un Lorrain entre 
Rome et Naples. Exh. cat., Musee des Beaux-Arts, 
Nancy, 4 May-27 Aug. 2007; Musee des Beaux-Arts, 
Caen, 21 Sept.-3i Dec. 2007. Paris, 2007. 

Nantes-Besangon 2008-9 

Simon Vouet (les annees italiennes 1613-1627). Exh. cat., 
Musee des Beaux-Arts de Nantes, 21 Nov. 2008- 
23 Feb. 2009; Musee des Beaux-Arts et d’Archeologie 
de Besangon, 27 Man-29 June 2009. Paris, 2008. 

Nantes-Lausanne-Rome 1985 

Anne van de Sandt. LesfreresSablet, 1775-1815: Peintures, 
dessins,gravures. Exh. cat., Musee des Beaux-Arts, 
Nantes, 4 Jan.-io Mar. 1985; Musee Cantonal des 
Beaux-Arts, Lausanne, 21 Mar-12 May 1985; Museo 
di Roma, Palazzo Braschi, Rome, 21 May-30 June 
1985. Rome, 1985. 

New York 1967 

Vouet to Rigaud, French Masters of the Seventeenth Century. 
Exh. cat.. Finch College Museum of Art, New York, 
20 Apr.-i8 June 1967. New York, 1967. 


208 


New York 1975 

Nature as Scene: French Landscape Painting from Poussin 
to Bonnard. Exh. cat., Wildenstein & Co., New York, 
29 Oct.-6 Dec. 1975. New York, 1975. 

New York 1980 

Martin H. Reymert and Robert J. F. Kashey, eds. 
Christian Imagery in French Nineteenth-Century Art, 
1789-1906. Exh. cat., Shepherd Gallery, New York, 
Spring 1980. New York, 1980. 

New York 1989 

Alan Wintermute et al. 1789: French Art during the 
Revolution. Exh. cat., Colnaghi, New York, 10 Oct- 
22 Nov. 1989. New York, 1989. 

New York 1998-99 

French Oil Sketches and the Academic Tradition: Selections 
from the Collection of a European Foundation. Dahesh 
Museum of Art, New York, 22 Sept. 1998-2 Jan. 1999. 
Brochure only. 

New York 1999 

Perrin Stein and Mary Tavener Holmes. Eighteenth- 
Century French Drawings in New York Collections. Exh. 
cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2 
Feb-25 Apr. 1999. New York, 1999. 

New York-Detroit-Paris 1986-87 
Alastair Laing et al. Francois Boucher, 1703-1770. Exh. 
cat.. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 17 
Feb.- 4 May 1986; Detroit Institute of Arts, 27 
May-17 Aug. 1986; Galeries Nationales du Grand 
Palais, Paris, 19 Sept. 1986-5 Jan. 1987. New York, 
1986. 

New York-London 2005-6 

French Drawings from the British Museum: Clouet to 
Seurat. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, 8 Nov. 2005-29 Jan. 2006; The British 
Museum, London, 29 June-26 Nov. 2006. London 
and New York, 2005. 

New York-New Orleans-Columbus 1985-86 
Colin B. Bailey, ed. The First Painters of the King: French 
Royal Taste from Louis XIV to the Revolution. Exh. cat.. 
Stair Sainty Matthiesen, New York, 16 Oct.-22 Nov. 
1985; New Orleans Museum of Art, 10 Dec. 1985- 
19 Jan. 1986; Columbus Museum of Art, OH, 8 Feb- 
26 Mar. 1986. New York, 1985. 

Nice 1991 

Beatrice Debrabandere-Descamps and Jean Forneris, 
eds. La musique et la peinture, 1600-1900: Trois siecles 
d’iconographie musicale. Exh. cat., Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Nice, 6 July-6 Oct. 1991. Nice, 1991. 

Nice-Clermond-Ferrand-Nancy 1977 

Marie-Catherine Sahut. Carle Vanloo, premier peintre du 
roi (Nice, 1705-Paris, 1765). Exh. cat., Musee Cheret, 
Nice, 21 Jan-13 Mar. 1977; Musee Bargoin, 
Clermond-Ferrand, 1 Apr-30 May 1977; Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Nancy, 18 Jum-15 Aug. 1977. Nice, 1977. 

Nicolson i960 

Benedict Nicolson. “‘Figures at a Table’ at Sarasota.” 
Burlington Magazine 102, no. 686 (May i960): 226. 

Nicolson 1969 

Benedict Nicolson. “X-Rays at Agnew’s.” Burlington 
Magazine 111, no. 792 (Mar. 1969): 165-71. 


Nicolson 1979 

Benedict Nicolson. The International Caravaggesque 
Movement. London, 1979. 

Nicolson 1989 

Benedict Nicolson. Caravaggism in Europe. Rev. and 
enl. Luisa Vertova. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Turin, 1989. 

Nicolson and Wright 1974 

Benedict Nicolson and Christopher Wright. Georges 

deLa Tour. London, 1974. 

Nordenfalk 1979 

C. Nordenfalk. “The Stockholm Watteaus and Their 
Secrets.” Nationalmuseum Bulletin 3, no. 3 (1979): 
105-9. 

Nordenfalk 1983 

C. Nordenfalk. “An Addendum to Watteau’s ‘La 
sereade italienne.’” Nationalmuseum Bulletin 7, no. 1 
(1983): 36-40. 

Notter 1999 

Annick Notter. Les Mays deNotre-Dame de Paris. Arras, 
1999. 


O 


Olander 1983 

William Olander. “Pour transmettre a la posterite: 
French Painting and the Revolution, 1774-1795.” 
PhD diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York 
University, 1983. 

Olander 1989 

William Olander. “French Painting and Politics in 
1794: The Great ‘Concours de l’an II.’” In New York 
1989, pp. 29-45. 

Omaha 2002-3 

J. Patrice Marandel. French Oil Sketches from the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art, 17th Century-i9th Century. 
Exh. cat., Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha, NE, 24 Aug. 
2002-5 Jan. 2003. Los Angeles, 2002. 

Ostrow 1996 

Steven F. Ostrow. Art and Spirituality in Counter- 
Reformation Rome: The Sistine and Pauline Chapels in S. 
Maria Maggiore. Cambridge, UK, and New York, 1996. 

Ottley 1818 

William Young Ottley. Engravings of the MostNobleThe 
Marquis of Stafford’s Collection of Pictures, in London... 
with Remarks on Each Picture. 4 vols. London, 1818. 


P 


Paris 1777 

Salon of 1777, Paris. Explication des peintures, sculptures 
et gravures de messieurs de TAcademieRoyale. Paris, 1777. 

Paris 1779 

Salon of 1779, Paris. Explication des peintures, sculptures 
et gravures de messieurs de TAcademieRoyale. Paris, 1779. 

Paris 1865 

Exposition des oeuvres d’HippolyteFlandrin. Exh. cat., 
L’Ecole Imperiale des Beaux-Arts, Paris, 1865. Paris, 
1865. 


Paris 1900 

Exposition universelle de 1900: Exposition retrospective de 
la Ville de Paris. Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales du 
Grand Palais, Paris, 1900. Paris, 1900. 

Paris 1932 

Exposition de la sculpture frangaise du Xlle siecle au XIXe 
siecle. Exh. cat., Galerie Andre Jacques Seligmann, 
Paris, 15 Nov-15 Dec. 1932. Paris, 1932. 

Paris 1950 

Autour de 1900. Exh. cat., Galerie Charpentier, Paris, 
1950. Paris, 1950. 

Paris 1972 

La peinture narrative en France, 1500-1800. Exh. cat., 
Galerie Joseph Hahn, Paris, 3-31 Mar. 1972. Paris, 
1972. 

Paris 1973-74 

P. H. de Valenciennes. Galerie de Bayser, Paris, 1973-74. 
Paris, 1973. 

Paris 1974 

Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnee and Jean-Pierre Cuzin. 
Valentin et les caravagesquesfran$ais. Exh. cat., Galeries 
Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, 13 Feb-15 Apr. 
1974. Paris, 1974. 

Paris 1974-75 

Arlette Serullaz. Le Neo-Classicismefran^ais: Dessins des 
musees de province. Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales du 
Grand Palais, Paris, 6 Dec. 1974-10 Feb. 1975. Paris, 
1974 . 

Paris 1983 

Jean-Frangois Mejanes. Les collections du comte d’Orsay: 
Dessins du Musee du Louvre. Exh. cat., Musee du 
Louvre, Paris, 24 Feb-30 May 1983. Paris, 1983. 

Paris 1983-84 

Raphael etVartfran$ais. Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales 
du Grand Palais, Paris, 15 Nov. 1983-15 Feb. 1984. 
Paris, 1983. 

Paris 1984-85 

Marie-Catherine Sahut and Nathalie Voile. Diderot et 
Tart de Boucher a David: Les Salons, 1759-1781. Exh. cat., 
Hotel de la Monnaie, Paris, 5 Oct. 1984-6 Jan. 1985. 
Paris, 1984. 

Paris 1989-90 

Antoine Schnapper et al .Jacques-Louis David, 1748-1825. 
Exh. cat., Musee du Louvre, Paris, and Musee 
National du Chateau, Versailles, 26 Oct. 1989-12 Feb. 
1990. Paris, 1989. 

Paris 1990-91 

Jacques Thuillier et al. Vouet. Exh. cat., Galeries 
Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, 6 Nov. 1990-11 
Feb. 1991. Paris, 1990. 

Paris 1991-92 

Jose Lothe and Agnes Virole. Images de confrerie 
parisiennes. Exh. cat., Bibliotheque Historique de la 
Ville de Paris, Hotel d’Angouleme-Lamoignon, 18 
Dec. 1991-7 Mar. 1992. Paris, 1992. 

Paris 1994-95 

Frangoise Blechet and Marie-Odile Pomeau, eds. 
Voltaire et I’Europe. Exh. cat., Bibliotheque Nationale 
de France, Monnaie de Paris, 29 Sept. 1994-8 Jan. 
1995. Paris, 1994. 


209 


Bibliography 







Paris 1997-98 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin and Pierre Rosenberg. Georges deLa 
Tour. Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, 
Paris, 1 Oct. 1997-26 Jan. 1998. Paris, 1997. 

Paris 1997-983 

L’artdu nu au XIXe siecle: Le photographe et son modele. 
Exh. cat., Bibliotheque Nationale de France Frangois 
Mitterand, 14 Oct. 1997-18 Jan. 1998. Paris, 1997. 

Paris 2009 

Galerie Eric Coatalem. LouyseMoillon (1610-1696): La 
nature morte au Grand Siecle. Exh. cat., Galerie Eric 
Coatalem, Paris, 13 Nov-12 Dec. 2009. Paris, 2009. 

Paris 2010 

Representer la Revolution les DixAout de Jacques Bertaux et 
Francois Gerard. Exh. cat., Musee de la Revolution 
Frangaise, Paris, 25 June-27 Sept. 2010. Paris, 2010. 

Paris 2012-13 

Guillaume Kazerouni, ed. Les couleurs du del: Peintures 
des eglises de Paris au XVIHe siecle. Exh. cat., Musee 
Carnavalet, Paris, 4 Oct. 2012-24 Feb. 2013. Paris, 
2012. 

Paris 2015 

Alexandra Zvereva and Marie Bertier. Legoutfran$ais: 
Tableaux & sculptures du XVIIe au XIXe siecle. Exh. cat., 
Galerie Alexis Bordes, Paris, 10 Nov-4 Dec. 2015. 
Paris, 2015. 

Paris-Diisseldorf-London-New York 1999-2000 
Chardin. Exh. cat., Galeries Nationales du Grand 
Palais, Paris, 7 Sept-22 Nov. 1999; Kunsthalle, 
Diisseldorf, 5 Dec. 1999-20 Feb. 2000; Royal 
Academy of Arts, London, 9 Mar.-28 May 2000; The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 27 June- 
3 Sept. 2000. New York, 1999. London and New York, 

2000. 

Paris-Luneville 1986 

Germain Boffrand, 1667-1754: L’aventure d’un architecte 
independant. Exh. cat., Mairie du 4eme arrondise- 
ment, Paris, Apr.-June 1986; Chateau-Musee de 
Luneville, Luneville, June-Sept. 1986. Paris, 1986. 

Paris-Lyon 1984-85 

Jacques Foucart et al. Hippolyte, Auguste etPaul 
Flandrin: Une fraternitepicturale au XIXe siecle. Exh. cat., 
Musee du Luxembourg, Paris, 16 Nov. 1984-10 Feb. 
1985; Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyon, 5 Man-19 May 
1985. Paris, 1984. 

Paris-New York 1997-98 
Guilhem Scherf and James David Draper .Augustin 
Pajou: Royal Sculptor, 1730-1809. Exh. cat., Musee du 
Louvre, Paris, 20 Oct. 1997-19 Jan. 1998; The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 26 Feb.-24 
May 1998. New York and Paris, 1997. 

Paris-New York-Chicago 1982 

Pierre Rosenberg. Lapeinture frangaise du XVIIe sidle 
dans les collections americaines. Exh. cat., Galeries 
Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, 29 Jan-26 Apr. 
1982; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
26 May-22 Aug. 1982; The Art Institute of Chicago, 

18 Sept.-28 Nov. 1982. Paris, 1982. 


Paris-New York-Stockholm 2003-4 
James David Draper and Guilhem Scherf, eds. L’esprit 
createur, dePigalle a Canova: Terns cuites europeennes, 
1740-1840. Exh. cat., Musee du Louvre, Paris, 19 Sept. 
2003-5 J^n. 2004; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, 28 Jan.-28 Apr. 2004; Nationalmuseum, 
Stockholm, 12 May-29 Aug. 2004. Paris, 2003. 

Paris-Philadelphia-Fort Worth 1991-92 

Colin Bailey, ed. The Loves of the Gods: Mythological 
Paintingfrom Watteau to David. Exh. cat., Galeries 
Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, 15 Oct. 1991-6 Jan. 
1992; Philadelphia Museum of Art, 23 Feb.-26 Apr. 
1992; Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 23 May-2 
Aug. 1992. New York and Fort Worth, 1992. 

Paris-Rome 1987 

Pierre Rosenberg. Subleyras, 1699-1749. Exh. cat., 
Musee du Luxembourg, Paris, 20 Feb.-26 Apr. 1987; 
Academie de France, Villa Medicis, Rome, 18 May-19 
July 1987. Paris, 1987. 

Parma-Naples-Rome 2001-2 

Erich Schleier, ed. GiovanniLanfranco: Unpittore 
barocco tra Parma, Roma e Napoli. Exh. cat., Reggia di 
Colorno, Parma, 8 Sept.-2 Dec. 2001; Castel 
Sant’Elmo, Naples, 21 Dec. 2001-24 Feb. 2002; 
Palazzo Venezia, Rome, 16 Mar-16 June 2002. Milan, 

2001. 

Peoria 1980 

J. Patrice Marandel. The Changing Image: Aspects of 
Nineteenth-Century French Art. Exh. cat., Lakeview 
Museum of Arts and Sciences, Peoria, IL. Published 
as the Lakeview Museum Bulletin 2, no. 2 (1980). 

Pericolo 2002 

Lorenzo Pericolo. Philippe de Champaigne. Tournai, 

2002. 

Perry 2006 

Marilyn Perry. Old Masters in Context, 2000-2006. New 
York, 2006. 

Perugia 2002 

Maria Teresa Caracciolo. Da Lille a Roma: Jean-Baptiste 
Wicar e ITtalia. Disegni dell’Accademia di Belle Arti di 
Perugia e del Museo di Lille. Exh. cat., Palazzo della 
Penna, Perugia, 26 Jan.-7 Apr. 2002. Milan and 
Perugia, 2002. 

Philippon 2012 

Carle Philippon. "Les Caravagesques Romains.” 

Corps et ombres: Dossier de Part 197 (2012): 22-31. 

de Piles 1677 

Roger de Piles. Conversations sur la connaissance de la 
peinture, etsur lejugement qu’on doitfaire des tableaux, 
oil par occasion il estparle de la vie de Rubens, & de quelques- 
uns desesplus beaux ouvrages. Paris, 1677; repr. Geneva, 
2014. 

Poliak 1928-31 

Oskar Poliak. DieKunsttatigkeit unter Urban VIII. 2 vols. 
Vienna, 1928-31. 

Port-Royal 1995 

Philippe de Champaigne et Port-Royal. Exh. cat., Musee 
National de Port-Royal des Champs, 29 Apr.-28 Aug. 
1995. Paris, 1995. 

Price 1988 

Lorna Price. Masterpieces from the Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art. Los Angeles, 1988. 


R 


Radisich 1982 

Paula Rea Radisich. "Eighteenth-Century Plein-air 
Painting and the Sketches of Pierre Henri de 
Valenciennes.” Art Bulletin 64, no. 1 (Mar. 1982): 
98-104. 

Reau 1927 

Louis Reau. Une dynastie de sculpteurs au XVIIIe siecle, 
LesLemoyne. Paris, 1927. 

Reau 1928 

Louis Reau. “Watteau.” In Dimier 1928-30, vol. 1, pp. 
1-27. Paris, 1928. 

Reau 1964 

Louis Reau. Houdon: Sa vie et son oeuvre. Paris, 1964. 
Reimers 1807 

Heinrich Christoph von Reimers. L’Academie imperiale 
des beaux-arts a Saint Petersbourg depuis son origine 
jusqu’au regne d’Alexandre I en 1807. Saint Petersburg, 
1807. 

Reinbold 1991 

Anne Reinbold. Georges deLa Tour. Paris, 1991. 
Renouvier 1863 

Jules Renouvier. Histoire de Tart pendant la Revolution 
considereprincipalement dans les estampes. Paris, 1863. 

Revel 1958 

J.-F. Revel. “Les Trois ‘V.’” Connaissance des arts 71 (Jan. 
1958): 66-73. 

Rice 1997 

Louise Rice. The Altars and Altarpieces of New St. Peter’s: 
Outfitting the Basilica, 1621-1666. Cambridge, 1997. 

Rochester-New Brunswick-Atlanta 1987-88 
Donald A. Rosenthal. La Grande Maniere: Historical and 
Religious Painting in France, 1700-1800. Exh. cat., 
Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester, 
NY, 2 Mar-26 July 1987; Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art 
Museum, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 

6 Sept-9 Nov. 1987; High Museum of Art, Atlanta, 

7 Dec. 1987-22 Jan. 1988. Rochester, NY, 1987. 

Roethlisberger 1979 

Marcel Roethlisberger. “Additional Works by 
Goffredo Wals and Claude Lorrain.” Burlington 
Magazine 121, no. 910 (Jan. 1979): 18,20-29. 

Roethlisberger 1981 

Marcel Roethlisberger. “Claude Gellee a Nancy.” La 
revue du Louvre et des musees de France 31, no. 1 (1981): 
48-52. 

Roland Michel 1984 

Marianne Roland Michel. Watteau: An Artist of the 
Eighteenth Century. New York, 1984. 

Roland Michel 1994 

Marianne Roland Michel. Chardin. Paris, 1994. 

Rome 1991 

Jacques Thullier et al. Vouet. Exh. cat., Palazzo delle 
Esposizioni, Rome, 6 Mar.-28 Apr. 1991. Rome, 1991. 

Rome 2000-2001 

Olivier Bonfait and Neil MacGregor. Le dieu cache: Les 
peintres du Grand Siecle et la vision de dieu. Academie de 
France, Villa Medici, Rome, 19 Oct. 2000-28 Jan. 
2001. Rome, 2000. 


210 


Rome 2005 

Anna Lo Bianco and Angela Negro, eds. IlSettecento 
aRoma. Exh. cat., Palazzo Venezia, Rome, 10 Nov. 2005- 
26 Feb. 2006. Milan, 2005. 

Rome-Dijon 1983 

Sylvain Laveissiere et al. Benigne Gagneraux (1765-1795), 
unpittorefrancese nella Roma diPio VI. Exh. cat., 

Galleria Borghese, Rome, 1 Apr-30 June 1983; 

Musee des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, 1 July-26 Sept. 1983. 
Rome, 1983. 

Rosenberg 1969 

Pierre Rosenberg. “Le XVIIIe siecle frangais a la 
Royal Academy.” Revue de Part, no. 3 (1969): 98-100. 

Rosenberg 1984 

Pierre Rosenberg. “France in the Golden Age: 

A Postscript.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 17 (1984): 
23-46. 

Rosenberg 1984a 

Pierre Rosenberg. Vies anciennes de Watteau. Paris, 1984. 
Rosenberg 1997 

Pierre Rosenberg. “Washington and Fort Worth: 
Georges de La Tour.” Burlington Magazine 139, no. 1129 
(Apr. 1997): 285-86. 

Rosenberg and de l’Epinay 1973 

Pierre Rosenberg and Frangois Mace de l’Epinay. 

Georges deLa Tour: Vie et oeuvre. Fribourg, 1973. 

Rosenberg and Mojana 1992 

Pierre Rosenberg and Marina Mojana. Georges deLa 

Tour: Catalogue complet des peintures. Paris, 1992. 

Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006 
Pierre Rosenberg and Benjamin Peronnet. “Un 
carnet de dessins de Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours au 
Louvre.” La revue du Louvre et des musees de France 56, no. 
2 (Apr. 2006): 51-62. 

Rosenberg and Peronnet 2006a 
Pierre Rosenberg and Benjamin Peronnet. “Un 
carnet de dessins de Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours au 
Louvre.” Genava 54 (2006): 247-303. 

Rosenberg and Prat 1996 

Pierre Rosenberg and Louis-Antoine Prat. Antoine 

Watteau: Catalogue raisonne des dessins. 3 vols. Milan 

1996. 

Rosenberg and Prat 2011 
Pierre Rosenberg and Louis-Antoine Prat, with the 
contribution of Martin Eidelberg. Watteau: The 
Drawings. London, 2011. 

Rosenberg and Schnapper 1970 
Pierre Rosenberg and Antoine Schnapper. 

“Beaufort’s Brutus.” Burlington Magazine 112, no. 812 
(Nov. 1970): 758-60. 

Rosenberg and Temperini 1999 

Pierre Rosenberg and Renaud Temperini. Chardin: 

Suivi du catalogue des oeuvres. Paris, 1999. 

Rosenberg and Van de Sandt 1983 

Pierre Rosenberg and Udolpho van de Sandt. Pierre 

Peyron, 1744-1814. Paris, 1983. 

Rosenblum 1961 

Robert Rosenblum. “Gavin Hamilton’s ‘Brutus’ and 
Its Aftermath.” Burlington Magazine 103, no. 694 (Jan. 
1961): 8-21. 


Rosenblum 1967 

Robert Rosenblum. Transformations in Late Eighteenth 
Century Art. Princeton, 1967. 

Rosenblum 1970 

Robert Rosenblum. “A Source for David’s ‘Horatii.’” 
Burlington Magazine 112, no. 806 (May 1970): 269-73. 

“Round the Galleries” 1983 

“Round the Galleries: A November Selection.” Apollo 

118, no. 261 (Nov. 1983): 449. 


s 


Saint Augustin 1993 

Saint Augustin: Confessions. Ed. Philippe Sellier. Trans. 
Arnauld d’Andilly. Paris, 1993. 

Saint-Gelais 1727 

Louis-Frangois Dubois de Saint-Gelais. Description des 
tableaux du Palais Royal avecLa vie des peintres ci la tetede 
leurs ouvrages. Paris, 1727. 

Saint-Gelais 1737 

Louis-Frangois Dubois de Saint-Gelais. Description des 
tableaux du Palais Royal avec La vie des peintres ci la tete de 
leurs ouvrages. 2nd rev. ed. Paris, 1737. 

St. Guily 1992 

Agnes Lacau St. Guily. La Tour, une lumiere dans la nuit. 
Tours, 1992. 

Sale 1996 

Marie-Pierre Sale. “Acquisitions: Alexandre 
Falguiere, Lutteurs.” 48/14: La revue du Musee d’Orsay 3 
(Sept. 1996): 28-29. 

Salomon and Cogeval 2003 
Antoine Salomon and Guy Cogeval. Vuillard: The 
Inexhaustible Glance. Critical Catalogue of Paintings and 
Pastels. 3 vols. Milan, 2003. 

Sanchez 2005 

Pierre Sanchez. Dictionnaire des artistes exposantdans 
les Salons de XVII et XVIIIeme siecles a Paris et en Provence, 
1673-1800. 3 vols. Dijon, 2005. 

San Diego 2003-4 

Philippe Bordes. Portraiture in Paris around 1800: Cooper 
Penrose by Jacques-Louis David. Exh. cat., Timken 
Museum of Art, San Diego, 17 Oct. 2003-15 Feb. 2004. 
San Diego, 2003. 

Sandoz 1969 

Marc Sandoz. “Precisions sur les peintures executees 
en Russie par Gabriel-Frangois Doyen.” In Actes du 
XXIIe Congres international d’histoire de Part, pp. 84-99. 
Budapest, 1969. 

Sandoz 1975 

Marc Sandoz. Gabriel Francois Doyen, 1726-1806. Paris, 
1975 - 

Sandoz 1977 

Marc Sandoz. Jean-Baptiste Deshays, 1729-1765. Paris, 
1977 - 

Sandoz 1979 

Marc Sandoz. Nicolas-Guy Brenet, 1728-1792. Paris, 

1979. 


Sandrart and Peltzer 1925 
Joachim von Sandrart, ed. A. R. Peltzer .Joachim von 
Sandrarts Academie derBau-, Bild-, undMahlerey-Kiinste 
von 1675: Leben der beruhmten Maler, Bildhauer und 
Baumeister. Munich, 1925. 

Van de Sandt 2006 

Udolpho van de Sandt. La Societe des Amis des Arts: 

Un mecenat sous la Revolution. Paris, 2006. 

Sarasota i960 

Creighton Gilbert. Figures at a Table. Exh. cat., 
Ringling Museum, Sarasota, FL, 7 Feb.-6 Mar. i960. 
Published as The Ringling Museums Sarasota, Florida 
Bulletin 1, no. 1 (Feb. i960). 

Schaefer 1986 

Scott Schaefer. “Three Centuries of European 
Sculpture: Bandini to Bartholdi.” Apollo 124, no. 297 
(Nov. 1986): 414-19. 

Schama 1989 

Simon Schama. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French 
Revolution. New York, 1989. 

Scherf 2010 

Guilhem Scherf. Voltaire nu. Paris, 2010. 

Schiavo 1962 

Armando Schiavo. The AltieriPalace. Rome, 1962. 
Schleier 1967 

Erich Schleier. “A Bozzetto by Vouet, Not by 
Lanfranco.” Burlington Magazine 109, no. 770 (May 
1967): 272-76. 

Schleier 1968 

Erich Schleier. “Vouet’s Destroyed St. Peter 
Altar-piece: Further Evidence.” Burlington Magazine 
110, no. 787 (Oct. 1968): 573-75. 

Schleier 1972 

Erich Schleier. “Two New Modelli for Vouet’s St. 
Peter Altarpiece.” Burlington Magazine 114, no. 827 
(Feb. 1972): 90-94. 

Schleier 2007 

Erich Schleier. Simon Vouet: 1590, Paris-1649, London. 
London, 2007. 

Schnapper 1974 

Antoine Schnapper. Jean Jouvenet (1644-1717) etla 
peinture d’histoire a Paris. Paris, 1974. 

Schnapper and Gouzi 2010 
Antoine Schnapper and Christine Gouzi .Jean 
Jouvenet, 1644-1717, et lapeinture d’histoire a Paris. Paris, 
2010. 

Seidel 1996 

Katrin Seidel. DieKerze: Motivgeschichte und Ikonologie. 
Zurich and New York, 1996. 

“Selection of 2002 Acquisitions” 

“A Selection of 2002 Museum Acquisitions.” Apollo 
157 (Dec. 2002): 15-46. 

Sensier 1881 

Alfred Sensier. La vie et Poeuvre de J. F. Millet. Paris, 1881. 
Serullaz 2005 

Arlette Serullaz. “Douze dessins de Lethiere au 
Louvre.” La revue du Louvre et des musees de France 55, 
no. 1 (2005): 76-82. 


211 


Bibliography 






Seznec and Adhemar 1957-67 

Jean Seznec and Jean Adhemar, eds. Diderot, Salons. 

4 vols. Oxford, 1957-67. 

Smith 1975 

Peter Lester Smith. “New Light on the Publication of 
Micromegas.” Modern Philology 73, no. 1 (1975): 77-80. 

Smith 2003 

Craig R. Smith. Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: 

A History. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL, 2003. 

Smith 2009 

Craig R. Smith. Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: 

A History. 3rd ed. Long Grove, IL, 2009. 

Solesmes 1973 

Francois Solesmes. Georges deLa Tour. Lausanne, 1973. 
Sotheby’s 2003 

Contemporary Art: Evening. IncludingProperty 
of the Estate of Vera G. List. Sotheby’s, New York, 

12 November 2003. New York, 2003. 

Souchal 1987 

Frangois Souchal, with the collaboration of 
Frangoise de La Moureyre and Henriette Dumuis. 
French Sculptors of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth 
Centuries: The Reign of Louis XIV. Vol. 3, M-Z. Oxford, 
1987. 

Souchal 1993 

Frangois Souchal, with the collaboration of 
Frangoise de La Moureyre and Henriette Dumuis. 
French Sculptors of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth 
Centuries: The Reign of Louis XIV. Vol. 4, Supplement A-Z. 
London and Boston, 1993. 

Spoleto 1996 

Bruno Mantura and Genevieve Lacambre. 

Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes: 1/50-1819. Exh. cat., 
Palazzo Rancani-Arroni, Spoleto, 27 June-4 Aug. 
1996. Naples, 1996. 

Stein 1912 

Henri Stein. Augustin Pajou. Paris, 1912. 

Stokstad 2004 

Marilyn Stokstad. Art History. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 
2004. 

Strasbourg-Tours 2003-4 
Dominique jacquot.L’apotheosedugeste. Exh. cat., 
Palais Rohan, Strasbourg, 7 June-14 Sept. 2003; 
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tours, 11 Oct. 2003-11 Jan. 
2004. 

Stryienski 1913 

C. Stryienski. Lagaleriedu regent Philippe, ducd’Orleans. 
Paris, 1913. 

Suslov 1928 

A. V. Suslov. Zimnij dvorets (The Winter Palace 
[1754-1927]: A Historical Sketch). Leningrad, 1928. 

Sydney-Melbourne 2003-4 
Jennifer Blunden, ed. Darkness and Light: Caravaggio 
and His World. Exh. cat., Art Gallery of New South 
Wales, Sydney, 29 Nov. 2003-22 Feb. 2004; National 
Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, 11 Mar.-30 May 2004. 
Sydney and Melbourne, 2003. 


T 


Taboureux 1880 

Emile Taboureux. “Claude Monet.” La vie moderne (12 
June 1880): 380-82. 

Temperini 2002 

Renaud Temperini. Antoine Watteau, 1684-1/21. Milan, 
2002. 

Thieme-Becker 1907-50 

Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, eds. Allgemeines 

Lexikon der bildenden Kiinsten. 37 vols. Leipzig, 

1907-50. 

Thiery 1787 

Luc Vincent Thiery. Guide des amateurs et des etrangers 
voyageurs a Paris, ou, Description raisonnee de cette ville, 
de sa banlieue, & de tout ce qu’elles contiennent de 
remarquable. Paris, 1787. 

Thuillier 1973 

Jacques Thuillier. Tout Voeuvrepeintde Georges de La 
Tour. Paris, 1973. 

Thuillier 1985 

Jacques Thuillier. Tout Voeuvre peintde Georges de La 
Tour. Paris, 1985. 

Thuillier 1991 

Jacques Thuillier. Propos surLa Tour, LeNain, Poussin, 
LeBrun. Paris, 1991. 

Thuillier 1992 

Jacques Thuillier. Georges de la Tour. Paris, 1992. 

Tokyo 2005 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. Georges deLa Tour. Exh. cat., 
National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, 8 Man-29 
May 2005. Tokyo, 2005. 

Tokyo-Kyoto-Kofu 1991 
Yoichiro Ide et dl.Jean-Frangois Millet. Exh. cat., 
Bunkamura Museum of Art, Tokyo, 10 Aug-23 Sept. 
1991; Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, 3-27 Oct. 
1991; Yamanashi Prefectural Museum of Art, Kofu, 3 
Nov-8 Dec. 1991. Tokyo, 1991. 

Tokyo-Osaka-Hokkaido-Yokohama 1990 

J. Patrice Marandel. Three Masters of French Rococo: 
Boucher, Fragonard, Lancret. Exh. cat., Odakyu Grand 
Gallery, Tokyo, 4-22 Apr. 1990; Umeda-Osaka 
Daimaru Museum, 9-21 May 1990; Hakodate 
Museum of Art, Hokkaido, 26 May-24 June 1990; 
Sogo Museum of Art, Yokohama, 4 July-12 Aug. 

1990. Tokyo, 1990. 

Toledo 1977 

Toledo Museum of Art, 12 July-3 Nov. 1977. No exh. 
cat. or exh. title. 

Toledo-Chicago-Ottawa 1975-76 

Pierre Rosenberg. The Age of Louis XV: French Painting, 

1710-1774. Exh. cat., Toledo Museum of Art, OH, 

26 Oct-7 Dec. 1975; Art Institute of Chicago, 10 Jan.- 
11 Feb. 1976; National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, 

19 Mar.-2 May 1976. Toledo, OH, 1975. 

Tours-Montpellier 2013-14 

Jean-Pierre Cuzin. Francois-Andre Vincent, 1746-1816: 
Entre Fragonard et David. Exh. cat., Musee des 
Beaux-Arts, Tours, 18 Oct. 2013-19 Jan. 2014; Musee 
Fabre, Montpellier, 8 Feb.-n May 2014. Paris, 2013. 


Tours-Portland 2008-9 

Penelope Hunter-Stiebel and Philippe Le Leyzour. 

La volupte du gout: French Painting in the Age ofMadame 
de Pompadour. Exh. cat., Musee des Beaux-Arts, Tours, 
11 Oct. 2008-12 Jan. 2009; Portland Art Museum, OR, 
7 Feb-17 May 2009. Portland, 2008. 

Tronchin 1895 

Henry Tronchin. Le cons tiller Frangois Tronchin etses 
amis. Paris, 1895. 


U 


Umemiya 2001 

Noriko Umemiya. “Georges de la Tour.” Shukan 
Bijutsukan (The Weekly Museum) 49 (Jan. 2001). 

Urbino-Rome 2001-2 

Giuseppe Cucco, ed. PapaAlbani e le arti a Urbino e a 
Roma, 1700-1721. Exh. cat., Palazzo del Collegio, 
Urbino, 29 June-30 Sept. 2001; Complesso di San 
Michele, Rome, 25 Oct. 2001-13 Jan. 2002. Venice, 
2001. 


V 


Valenciennes 2004 

Watteau et la fetegalante. Exh. cat., Musee des 
Beaux-Arts de Valenciennes, 5 Mar-14 June 2004. 
Paris, 2004. 

Valenciennes-Paris-Amsterdam 1999-2000 
Patrick Ramade and Laure de Margerie. Carpeaux 
peintre. Musee des Beaux-Arts, Valenciennes, 8 Oct. 
1999-3 Jan. 2000; Musee du Luxembourg, Paris, 

24 Jan.-2 Apr. 2000; Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, 
1 Apr-27 Aug. 2000. Paris and Valenciennes, 1999. 

Varty 1959 

K. Varty. “The Life and Legend of Louise Labbe.” 
Nottingham Medieval Studies 3 (1959): 78-108. 

Versailles 2004 

Anne Poulet, ed. Houdon, sculp teur des Lumieres. Exh. 
cat., Musee National du Chateau de Versailles, 

1 Mar.-3i May 2004. Versailles, 2004. 

Vogtherr 2011 

Christoph Martin Vogtherr. Watteau at the Wallace 
Collection. London, 2011. 

Voile 1979 

Nathalie Voile .jean-Simon Berthelemy (1743-1811): 

Peintre d’histoire. Paris, 1979. 

Voss 1940 

Hermann Voss. “Valentin de Boulogne.” In 
Thieme-Becker 1907-50, vol. 34, p. 64. Leipzig, 1940. 


212 


W 


Waagen 1837 

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Kunstwerke undKiinstler 
in England. 2 vols. Berlin, 1837. 

Waagen 1838 

Gustav Friedrich Waagen, trans. H. E. Lloyd. Works 
of Art and Artists in England. 3 vols. London, 1838. 

Waagen 1854-57 

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Treasures of Art in Great 
Britain. 4 vols. London, 1854-57. 

Washington 1993 

Philip Conisbee. The Magdalene with theSmokingFlame 
by Georges deLa Tour. National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, 7 Apr.-3o Sept. 1993. Washington, 
DC, 1993. Brochure only. 

Washington 2016 

Hubert Robert. Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, 26 June-2 Oct. 2016. Washington, 
DC, 2016. 

Washington 2017 

America Collects Eighteenth-Century French Painting. Exh. 
cat., National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 21 
May-20 Aug. 2017. Washington, DC, 2017. 

Washington-Fort Worth 1996-97 
Philip Conisbee. Georges de la Tour and His World. Exh. 
cat., National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 6 Oct. 
1996-5 Jan. 1997; Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 

1 Feb.-io May 1997. Washington, DC, 1996. 

Washington-Paris 1982-83 
H. Diane Russell. ClaudeLorrain, 1600-1682. Exh. cat.. 
National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 17 Oct. 
1982-2 Jan. 1983; Galeries Nationales du Grand 
Palais, Paris, as Claude Gellee dit le Lorrain, 1600-1682, 

15 Feb-16 May 1983. New York, 1982. 

Westmacott 1824 

C. M. Westmacott. British Galleries of Painting and 
Sculpture: Comprising a General Historical and Critical 
Catalogue, with Separate Notices of Every Work of Fine Art 
in the Principal Collections. London, 1824. 

Wildenstein 1933 

Georges Wildenstein. Chardin. Paris, 1933. 
Wildenstein 1963 

Georges Wildenstein. Chardin. Zurich, 1963. 
Wildenstein 1974 

Daniel Wildenstein. Claude Monet: Biographie et 
catalogue raisonne. 5 vols. Lausanne and Paris, 1974. 

Wildenstein and Wildenstein 1973 
Daniel Wildenstein and Guy Wildenstein. Documents 
complementaires au catalogue de Toeuvre de David. Paris, 
1973 - 

Williamstown-Los Angeles 2004-5 
Philippe Bord es.Jacques-Louis David: Empire to Exile. 
Exh. cat., Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA, 5 
June-5 Sept. 2004; J. Paul Getty Museum, Los 
Angeles, 1 Feb.-24 Apr. 2005. New Haven and 
London, 2005. 


Willk-Brocard 1978 

Nicole Willk-Brocard. Frangois-GuillaumeMenageot 
(1744-1816). Paris, 1978. 

Willk-Brocard 1995 

Nicole Willk-Brocard. Une dynastie: Les Halle. Paris, 
1995 - 

Willk-Brocard 2001 

Nicole Willk-Brocard. “A propos de quelques 
tableaux d’histoire de Jean-Bernard Restout 
(1732-1796).” In Melanges en hommage ci Pierre 
Rosenberg: Peintures et dessins en France et en Italie, 
XVIIe-XVIIIe siecles, ed. Anna Ottani Cavina, 
pp. 458-66. Paris, 2001. 

Willk-Brocard 2018 

Nicole Willk-Brocard .Jean-Bernard Restout (1732-1796). 
Paris, 2018. 

Wintermute 1985 

Alan P. Wintermute. “Inventory of Paintings by the 
Ten ‘First Painters to the King’ in Public Collections 
in the United States.” In New York-New Orleans- 
Columbus 1985-86, pp. 125-42. 

Wright 1985 

Christopher Wright. The French Painters of the 
Seventeenth Century. Boston, 1985. 

Wright 1995 

Christopher Wright. The Masters of Candlelight. 
Landshut-Ergolding, 1995. 


Y 


Young 1825 

John Young. A Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures 
of the Most Noble The Marquess ofStafford at Cleveland 
House, London. 2 vols. London, 1825. 


Z 


Zimmermann 1912 

E. Heinrich Zimmermann. Watteau, desMeisters Werke. 
Stuttgart, 1912. 


213 


Bibliography 










INDEX 


Note: Page numbers in italic type indicate illustrations. Endnotes have been indexed in the format 
“68cat8n3,” which means “page 68, catalogue number 8, note 3.” 


A 


academies (nude studies), 59 

Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, 105 

Academy of Saint Luke (Rome), 19,43,89 

Academy of the Gobelins, 41 

Ackerman, Gerald, 159 

Adhemar, Helene, 30 

Ahmanson, Howard F., 11-12 

Ahmanson, Robert, 13 

Ahmanson Foundation, 11-15 

Algardi, Alessandro, 12,25 

Aligre, Charles d’, 25 

Altieri, Emilio, Prince, 117 

Altieri di Oriolo, Paluzzo, 117 

Andilly, Robert Arnauld d’, 33,5icat6n8 

Anonymous 

Diana ofAnet, 41 

The Funeral Ceremonyfor Maria Clementina Sobieska 
in the Cappella del Coro, Saint Peter’s, 43, 45 
Apuleius, 103 

Metamorphoses, 117 
Arnauld, Angelique, 33,5icat6n8 
Arnauld, Antoine, 33,5icat6n8 
Arnould, Sophie, 83 
Art Nouveau, 173 
Aube, Jean-Paul, 151 
Aubry-Vitet, Eugene, 169 
Audran, Claude, III, 131 


B 


Baglione, Giovanni, 13,19 
Bailey, Colin, 91 
Bailly, Jean Sylvain, 105 
Banfair, Olivier, 30 
Baratta, Giovanni, 14 
Barbizon painters, 165,171 
Barnes, Joanna, 149,159 
Bartolomeo, Fra (Baccio della Porta), 12 
Bassano, Jacopo, i32cat22ni 
Batoni, Pompeo, Portrait of Sir Wyndham Knatchbull- 
Wyndham, 14 

Baudelaire, Charles, 147,175 
Beaufort, Jacques-Antoine, 57 
The Oath of Brutus, 56, 57,185 
Bentveughels, 19 
Bernini, Gian Lorenzo, 12,13,163 
Berthelmy, Jean-Simon, 59 

A Dying Gladiator, 58, 59,185-86 
Berulle, Pierre de, 29 

Bianchi, Pietro, Thelmmaculate Virgin Adored by Saints, 
44,52catnni5 
Binoit, Peter, 5icat7n4 
Boeckhorst, Jan, 79 


Boilly, Louis-Leopold, 61,63 

The Entrance to thejardin Turc, 61 

Family Celebration, 61 

Landscape with Figures and Animals, 63 

Landscape with Italianate Buildings, 63 

A Painter’s Studio, 61 

Portrait of a Gentleman, 61 

Portrait of a Lady, 61 

Portrait of One of the Sons of Boilly, 61 

portraits of Monsieur and Madame d’Aucourt 

de Saint-Just, 63 

Profile of a Young Woman’s Head, 60, 61,186 
View of a Lake, 62, 63,186 
Bonnard, Pierre, 173 
Bordeaux, Jean-Luc, 91 
Bordes, Philippe, 143-44,161 
Borghese Gladiator, 101 
Borghese Vase, 111,134cat39n2 
Borromini, Francesco, 89 
Both, Jan, 23 

Boucher, Francois, 65,67,69,103 
The Death of Meleager, 64, 65,186 
Monument toMignard, 14, 66,67, 186 
Project for a Cartouche: An Allegory of Minerva, Fame, 
History, and Faith Overcoming Ignorance and Time, 67 
Boudin, Eugene, 167 
Boulogne, Valentin de, 12,13 

A Musical Party, 18, 19-20,178-79 
Les quatre dges, 20 
Boullee, Etienne-Louis, 111 
Bourbon, Beatrice, heiress of, 169 
Brancaccio, Salvatore, 149 
Brebiette, Pierre, 39 
Breenbergh, Bartholomeus, 23 
Brenet, Nicolas-Guy, 69 

Aethra ShowingHerSon Theseus the Place Where His 
Father Had Hidden His Arms, 68, 69,186 

c 


Callot, Jacques, 39 
Calvin, John, 141 

Canova, Antonio, Cupid AwakeningPsyche, 117 
Caravaggio, 13,19 
Caravaggisti, 13,35 
Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste, 139,196 
Seascape, 138, 139,196 
Shipwreck in Dieppe’s Harbor, 139 
Carracci, Agostino, 13 
Carracci, Annibale, 13,27 
Diana and Callisto, 91 
Carracci, Ludovico, 13 
Carries, Jean-Joseph, 141 

Portrait of LoyseLabbe, 140, 141,196 
Carter, Edward, 11 

Catherine II, “the Great,” Empress of Russia, 77,83 

Cato, Origines, 107 

Caviglia-Brunel, Susanna, 103 

Caylus, Anne Claude, comte de, 91,131 

Cazes, Pierre-Jacques, 65 

Cellini, Benvenuto, 41,83 


Chardin, Jean-Simeon, 12,71 
Soap Bubbles, 70, 71,187 
Woman Sealing a Letter, 71 
Charles X, King of France, 161 
Ciechanowiecki, Andrew, 161 
Cima da Conegliano, Madonna and Child in 
a Landscape, 13 
Clark, Anthony M., 121 
Clark, Kenneth, 84 

Claude Lorrain (Claude Gellee), 23,171 
Italian Landscape, 23 

Pastoral Landscape with a Mill, 22,23, socat2ni, 
179-80 

Clement X, Pope, 117 
Clement XI, Pope, 89 
Cointepas, Henri, 173 
Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, 41 
Colonna, Prospero, 97 
colorismo, 25,37 

Conisbee, Philip, 12,25,29,33,39 
Constable, John, 171 
Conti, prince de, 91 
Corot, Camille, 171 
Corsini, Lorenzo, 89 
Cortona, Pietro da, 12 
Counter-Reformation, 27,29,47 
Courbet, Gustave, 151,153,165 
Courtois, Jacques, 37 
Coutan, Aimable-Paul, 163 
Couture, Thomas, 151 
Coypel, Antoine, 25 

The Baptism of Christ, 24, 25,180 
Coypel, Charles-Antoine, 25 
Coypel, Noel, 25 
Coypel, Philippe, 25 
Cunego, Domenico, 57 
Cuzin, Jean-Pierre, 129 


D 


Damery, chevalier, 97 
Dandre-Bardon, Michel-Frangois, 65 
Daniel, Gabriel, Histoire de France, 65 
Daumier, Honore, 151 
David, Jacques-Louis, 59,143-44 

Andromache Weeping Over the Body of Hector, 107 

The Funeral ofPatrocles, 107 

Intervention of the Sabine Women, 143 

Leonidas at Thermopylae, 143 

Oath of theHoratii, 57 

Portrait of Catherine Tallard, 143 

Portrait of Cooper Penrose, 144, 145 

Portrait of Jean-Pierre Delahaye, 15, 142, 143-44, 

196-97 

The Tennis Court Oath, 57,157 
Decourcelle, Pierre, 105 
Degas, Edgar, 165,167 
The Absinthe Drinkers, 151 
Delahaye, Jean-Louis, 143 
Delahaye, Jean-Pierre, 143-44 


214 


Delaplanche, Eugene, 151 
Delaplanche, Jerome, 37 
Denis, Maurice, 173 
Der Lausitz, Maria Anna von, 117 
Desboutin, Marcellin, 151 
Deshays, Jean-Baptiste, 73 
The Burial of Saint Andrew, 73 
Scene from the Martyrdom of Saint Andrew (Saint 
Andrew, Brough t by His Tormen tors, Refuses to 
Worship the Pagan Gods), 72, 73,187-88 
Desligne, Marie Madeleine-Joseph, 61 
Desportes, Alexandre-F rangois, 75 

DogPointingPartridges in a Landscape, 74, 75,188 
Zette Stopped before Two Partridges, 75 
Diaz de la Pena, Narcisse-Virgilio, 147,171 
Figures in Oriental Costumes, 146, 147,197 
Diderot, Denis, 69,73,97,101 
Dieu, Jean de, 67 
disegno (drawing), 25 
Dodin, Charles-Nicolas, 97 
dogs, i32cat22m 

Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 12,13,27,73 
Condemnation of Saint Cecilia, 93 
Last Communion of Saint Jerome, 169 
Donahue, Kenneth, 12,71 
Dorival, Bernard, 33 
Doyen, Gabriel-F rangois, 77,93,113 

The Russian Nobility Offering the Imperial Princes to 
Minerva, 76,77, 188 
Du Barry, comtesse, 105 
Dubois, Frangois, 163 
Dubouchet, Henri, 141 
Dubufe, Edouard Marie, 149 
Dubufe, Louis Edouard, 149 

Portrait of the Princess Brancaccio, nee Mary Elizabeth 
Hickson-Field, 148, 149,197 
Duplessis, Joseph-Siffred, 121 
Dupre, Jules, 171 
Dyck, Anthony van, 79,149 

E 


Eakins, Thomas, The Wrestlers, 151 
Edelinck, Gerard, 33 
Eidelberg, Martin, 131 
Etex, Louis-Jules, 151 

F 


Falda, Giovanni Battista, 43 
Falguiere, Jean-Alexandre-Joseph, 139,151,153 
Figures Seated around a Lamp, 152, 153,198 
Man Smoking a Pipe, 150, 151,198 
The Victor at the Cock Fight, 151 
The Wrestlers, 151,153 
Fessard, Etienne, 81 
Fetrot, Andre, 41 
Filloeuf, Pierre, 71 
Fine Arts Academy, Parma, 113,115 
Flandrin, Hippolyte-Jean, 155 
The Sacrifice of Isaac, 154, 155,198 


Flandrin, Paul, 155 
Fragonard, Jean-Honore, 65 
Francois I, King of France, 101 
Franklin, Benjamin, 84 

French Academy (Rome), 25,59,73,75,89,93,105, 
107,111,123,139 
Fulton, Robert, 84 
Fusco, Peter, 12 


G 


Gaehtgens, Thomas, 127 
Gagneraux, Benigne, 117 
Gai, Francesco, 149 
Galloche, Louis, 79,87,91 

Saint Martin Kneeling in Front of an Eremitic Monk, 
78, 79,188-89 

Saint Martin SharingHis Coat with a Beggar, 78, 79, 
188-89 

Gareau, L. P. F., 101 
Gamier, Francois, 35 
Gauguin, Paul, 173 
Gautier, Theophile, 175 
Gerard, Frangois-Pascal-Simon, Baron, 157 
The 10th of August, 1792, 14, 156, 157,198 
Gerome, Jean-Leon, 159 

Arab Woman in a Doorway, 158, 159,198 
Giani, Felice, 117 
Giotto, 155 

Giovinezzi, Vito Maria, 117 
Giradot de Chancourt, Etienne, 35,5icat7n6 
Girardon, Frangois, 67 
Girodet-Trioson, Anne-Louis, 101 
Giustiniani, Vincenzo, 19-20 
Gobelins tapestries, 87,95,101,109 
Gogh, Vincent van, 165 
Goltzius, Hendrik, 12 

Danae Preparing to Receive Jupiter, 15 
Gougenot, Abbe, 79 
Granger, Jean-Perrin, 163 
Gros, Antoine-Jean, 157 
Groult, Camille, 111 

Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri), i32cat22ni 


H 


Halle, Noel, 59,81,109 

Saint Anne Revealing to the Virgin the Prophecy of 
Isaiah, 80, 81,189 
Hals, Frans, 12 

Hamilton, Gavin, The Oath of Brutus, 57 
Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert, 11 
Heem, Jan Davidsz. de, 11 
Hemery, Frangoise-Heleonore, 97 
Henin, Nicolas de, 131 
Hennin, Pierre-Michel, 97 
Herbert, Robert, 161 
Herdt, Anne de, 117 

Hesius, Guilieimus, Emblemata Sacra: DeFide, Spe, 
Charitate, 29 

Hesse, Nicolas-Auguste, 163 
Hessel, Jos and Lucy, 173 
Hickson-Field, Elizabeth, 149 
Hiroshige, Utagawa, 167 


Hokusai, 167 
Honthorst, Gerrit van, 13 
Houdon, Jean-Antoine, 83-84 
Seated Voltaire, 14, 82, 83-84,189 
Voltaire, 83, 85 
Houssaye, Arsene, 175 
Hulsdonck, Jacob van, 33,5icat6ns 

Basket with Pomegranates and Lemons, 35 
Huyghe, Rene, 11 

I 


Impressionism, 125,139,167,173 
Ingres, Jean-Auguste-Dominique, 155,169 

j 

Jackall, Yuriko, 111 
Jansen, Cornelis, 33 
Jansenism, 33,5icat7n7 
Japanese prints, 167,173 
Jefferson, Thomas, 84 

Joinville, Jean de. Life of Saint Louis, 169, i77cat64ni 
Jones, John Paul, 84 
Jouvenet, Jean, 73,87 

Christ Driving the Traders from the Temple, 87 
Christ in the House of Simon, 87 
The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 87 
The Raising of Lazarus, 14, 86, 87,189 
Juinne, Frangois-Louis de, 163 
Jullienne, Jean de, 131 
Juvarra, Filippo, 99 

K 


Kerhallet, Philippe de, 71 

L 


Labbe, Loyse, 141 

Lafayette, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de, 84 
Lafitte, Louis, 161 

Brutus Listening to the Ambassadors of the Tarquins(?), 
160, 161,198-99 
La Fontaine, Jean de, 129 

Les amours de Psyche et de Cupidon, 103 
Lafrance, Jules Isidore, 151 
La Hyre, Laurent de, 27,69 

The Assumption of the Virgin, 26, 27,180 
Laing, Alastair, 65 

La Live de Bellegarde, Louis Denis Joseph de, 103 

Lallemant, Georges, 39 

La Mina, marques de, 99 

Lancret, Nicolas, 131 

Lanfranco, Giovanni, 43 

Langlois, Jerome-Martin, 163 

The Marriage of the Virgin, 162, 163,199 
The Vow and Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, 163 
Lastic, Georges de, 97 
La Tour, Etienne, 30 


215 


Index 



















La Tour, Georges de, 13,29-30,39 

The Magdalen with theSmokingFlame, 11,12, 28, 
29-30,181-82 

The PenitantMagdalen (“Wrightsman Magdalen”), 
29-30 ,31 

The Repentant Magdalen (“Fabius Magdalene”), 
29-30 ,31 

“Terff Magdalen,” 30 
Le Barbier, Jean-Jacques, 161 
Lebas, Hippolyte, 163 
Le Bastier, Pierre, 39 
Le Brun, Charles, 41,87 
Le Carpentier, Charles, 73 
Legros, Pierre, 1 ,89 
Legros, Pierre, II, 89 
Saint Bartholomew, 89 
Saint Thomas, 88, 89,189 
Lemoyne, Francois, 91,99 

Diana and Callisto,9o, 91,189-90 
Lemoyne, Jean-Baptiste, II, 105 
Tomb ofMignard, 67 
Leonardo da Vinci, 101 

The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne, 101 
Le Pelletier de Mortefontaine, Louis, 84 
Lepicie, Frangois-Bernard, 67 
Le Quint, Frangois, 39 
Le Sueur, Eustache, 39 
Lethiere, Guillaume, 93,161 

Brutus Condemning His Sons to Death, 93 
The Death of Camilla, 93 
The Death of Virginia, 92, 93,190 
Levkoff, Mary, 12 
Ligorio, Pirro, 111 
Livy, Ab urbe condita, 57 
Lombardo, Ludovico, 14 
Loo, Carl van, 95,97,99 

Theseus Taming the Bull of Marathon, 94, 95,190 
The Three Graces, 96, 97,190-91 
The Victory of Alexander over King Porus, 98, 99,191 
Lorrain, Claude. See Claude Lorrain 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), 11-15 
Louis IX, King of France, 169 
Louis XIII, King of France, 39,47,48,5icat6n8 
Louis XIV, King of France, 41,75,87 
Louis XV, King of France, 67 
Louis XVI, King of France, 77,101,105,143,157 
Louis XVIII, King of France, 143,161,169 
Louvre museum, 48,59,87 
Lugand, Jacques, 127 

M 


Magny, Olivier de, 141 
Malgouyres, Philippe, 44 
Manet, Edouard, 167 
Manfredi, Bartolomeo, 19 

Tavern Scene with a Lute Player, 19 ,21 
Marandel, J. Patrice, 12,14,157,163 
Maratti, Carlo, 89 
Mariette, Pierre-Jean, 71 
Marigny, Abel-Frangois Poisson de Vandieres, 
marquis de, 109 
Martin-Mery, Gilberte, 29 
Mazarin, Jules Raymond, Cardinal, 41 
Mazzanti, Ludovico, Death ofLucretia, 14 
Meissner, Bruno, 33 


Mej anes, J ean-F rangois, 103 
Mellan, Claude, Virginia da Vezzo, Wife of Simon Vouet, 
48 ,49 

Mellin, Charles, 44 

Menageot, Frangois-Guillaume, 101 

The Death of Leonardo da Vinci in the Arms of Francois 
1,100, 101,191 

Michelangelo, Pieta, 43,5icatnn3 
Mignard, Catherine, 67 
Mignard, Pierre, 67 
Millet, Jean-F rangois, 165,171 

A Norman Milkmaid at Greville, 164, 165,199 
The Winnower, 165 

Mniszech, Marie-Amelie, countess, 97 
modernism, 173 
Moillon, Louise, 33 

Basket of Peaches with Plums and Quinces, 32, 33,182 
Still Life of Basket ofFruit and Bunch of Asparagus, 
33Moillon, Nicolas, 35,5icat7ni 
Momper, Joos de, Mountainous Landscape with Figures 
and a Donkey, 23 

Monet, Claude, 167,177cat6sn2 
Impression: Sunrise, 167 
Madame Louis Joachim Gaudibert, 149 
View ofVetheuil, 166, 167,199-200 
Monnot, Pierre Etienne, 89 
Montfaucon, Bernard de, 169 
Monvoisin, Raymond-Auguste, 163 


N 


Nabis, 173 

Napoleon Bonaparte, 84,143,157,161 
Napoletano, Filippo, 23 
Natanson, Thadee and Adam, 173 
Natoire, Charles-Joseph, 59,73,99,103,127 
The Battle of Tolbiac, 99 

Psyche in the Underworld (Psyche Obtaining the Elixir 
of Beauty from Proserpine), 102, 103,191-92 
The Toilet of Psyche, 103 
Venus Forbidding Cupid to See Psyche, 103 
VenusShowingPsyche to Cupid, 103 
Neoclassicism, 57,93,117,123,161,163 
Nerval, Gerard de, 175 

Neufville de Brunaubois-Montador, Jean-F rangois, 
99 

Newton, Isaac, Opticks, 71 
Nogent, Chretien de, 30 


O 


Orientalism, 147,159 
Orleans, Philippe II, due d’, 20,25 
Orry, Philibert, 99 
Ovid, Metamorphoses, 65,91 


P 


Pajou, Augustin, 105 
Monument to Buffon, 105 
Portrait of a Man, 104, 105,192 
Psyche Abandoned, 105 
Pajou, Jacques Augustin, 161 
Paris Goldsmiths’ Guild, 39 


Paris Salon, 57,59,63,69,71,73,83,87,93,97,99,101, 
107,123,125,127,147,161,165,167,171 
Parizeau, Philippe Louis, 73 
Parrocel, Joseph, 34 

Scenes from Ancient History (?), 34, 35,182 
Pasquier, Jacques Jean, 97 
Pater, Jean-Baptiste, 131 
Paul I, Czar of Russia, 77 
Penni, Giovan Francesco, 163 
Penrose, Cooper, 144 ,145 
Percier, Charles, 161 
Pericolo, Lorenzo, 33 
Peronnet, Benjamin, 117 
Perugino, The Marriage of the Virgin, 163 
Peter II, King of Portugal, 89 
Petrovna, Elisabeta, Empress of Russia, 127 
Philip III, King of France, 169 
Philippe de Champaigne, 33,5icat8n8 
The Conversion of Saint Augustine, 33 
Saint Augustine, 32, 33,182-83 
Piccolomini, Francesco, 97 
Pierre, Jean-Baptiste-Marie, 109,127 
Pigalle, Jean-Baptiste, Voltaire Nude, 83 ,85 
Piles, Roger de, 37 

Dialogue sur le colons (Dialogue on Colors), 25 
Pissarro, Camille, 167 
plein-air painting, 63,125,173 
Plutarch, Life of Theseus, 69,95 
Poerson, Charles, 39 

The Predication of Saint Peter, 38, 39,183-84 
Poilly, Frangois, 33 

Pompadour, Jeanne Antoinette Poisson, Madame de, 
97 

Pope-Hennessy, John, 11 
Port-Royal des Champs, 33,5icat6n8 
Poulhariez, Pierre, 119 
Poussin, Nicolas, 25,69,171 
Death of Germanicus, 101 
Marriage, 163 
Pozzo, Cassiano dal, 48 
Preti, Mattia, 73 
Provence, countess de, 101 


R 


Raffaello, Sanuto da, 163 
Rand, Richard, 12 
Raphael, 59,97,123 

The Blinding of Ely mas, 123 
Madonna of Monteluce, 163 
The Marriage of the Virgin, 163 
Saint Paul Preaching in Athens, 123 
realism, 29,151,165,171 
Regnault, Jean-Baptiste, 107,161 

Aeneas Offering Presents to KingLatinus and Asking 
Him for the Hand of His Daughter, 106, 107,192 
Reimers, Heinrich Christoph von, 77 
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, 129 
The RaisingofLazarus, 11 
Reni, Guido, 12,13 

Bacchus and Ariadne, 13 
Portrait of Cardinal Ubaldini, 13 
Renoir, Pierre-Auguste, 167 
Restout, Jean, 73,109 


216 


Restout, Jean-Bernard, 109 

The Arrival of Aeneas in Carthage, 108, 109,192-93 
The Departure ofDido and Aeneasfor the Hunt, 108, 
109,192-93 
The Sacrifice of Dido, 109 
Ribera, Jusepe de, 129 
Rice, Louise, 43-44 
Richelieu, Cardinal, 33,5icat6n8 
Rivalz, Antoine, 119 
Robert, Hubert, 105,111 

Stair and Fountain in a Park, 14, no, 111,193 
Staircase in a Park, 111 
Robert of Clermont, 169 
Rococo, 57 
Rollin, Charles, 93 
Romano, Giulio, 163 
Romanticism, 93,141,165 
Rosenberg, Jakob, 11 

Rosenberg, Pierre, 11,29,57,65,71,117,121 
Rousseau, Theodore, 147,165,171 
Roussel, Ker-Xavier, 173 

Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, 25,27,37, 
39 , 41 , 57 , 59 , 69, 73 ,83, 89, 105,107,127 
Rubenism, 25,37,77 
Rubens, Peter Paul, 25,27,97 

TheEducation of Marie deMedicis, 97 
Medici cycle, 25 
Rusconi, Camillo, 89 


s 


Sablet, Jacques, 113,115 

Allegory of the City of Bern (The Temple of the Liberal 
Arts, with the City of Bern and the Goddess Minerva), 
114, 115, 193-94 
TheDeath of Pallas, 113 

Helen Saved by Venus from the Wrath of Aeneas, 112, 
113 ,193 

Saint-Aubin, Gabriel de, 59,91 
Saint-Cyran, Jean du Vergier de Haurann, 
abbe de, 33 

Saint-Ours, Jean-Pierre, 117 

TheReunion of Cupid andPsyche, 116, 117,194 
Sale, Marie-Pierre, 151 
Salm-Salm, Charles de, 97 
Salon. See Paris Salon 
Sandoz, Marc, 77 
Sandrart, Joachim von, 19 
Saraceni, Carlo (also known as Carlo Veneziano), 13 
Sassoferrato, 163 
Schaefer, Scott, 12 
Scheffer, Ary, 169 

TheDeath of Saint Louis, 169 
The Last Communion of Saint Louis, 168, 169,200 
Saint Louis Visiting the Plague-Stricken Soldiers, 169 
Scherf, Guilhem, 105 
Schleier, Erich, 43-44 
Schnapper, Antoine, 57,87 
Seguin, Pierre, 29-30 
Serra di Cardinale family, 119 
Serusier, Paul, 173 
Sevres porcelain factory, 171 
Seznec, Jean, I32cati3n2 
Silvestre, Louis de, 87 

Singer, Winnaretta (Princesse de Scey-Monbelieard 
[and later Polignac]), 141 


Sisley, Alfred, 167 
Somis, Lorenzo (or Laurent), 95 
Sonolet, Hector, 84 
Soreau, Daniel, 35,5icat6n4 
Soreau, Isaac, 35,5icat6n4 
Soreau, Peter, 5icat6n4 
Spinuzzi, Carla Maria Rosa von, 117 
Stein, Henri, 105 

Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle), 169 
Subleyras, Pierre, 119,121 
The Anointing of Louis XV, 119 
The Emperor Heraclius Carrying the Cross, 118, 119,194 
Seven Angels Adoring the Christ Child, 120, 121,194 
Two Saints Appearing to White Penitents, 121 
Suslov, A. V., 77 
Suvee, Joseph-Benoit, 59,123 
TheDeath of Cleopatra, 123 
The Interior View of the Temple ofSegeste, 123 
The Predication of Saint Paul, 122, 123,194 
Saint Denis Preaching, 123 
Sweerts, Michael, 12,13,15 
Plague in an Ancient City, 11,15 


T 


Teniers, David, the Younger, 11 
Terpak, Frances, 71 
Thuillier, Jacques, 29,30 
Tiepolo, 69 

Titian (Tiziano Vecellio), 13,25 
Toulouse-Lautrec family, 71 
Troyon, Constant, 171 

View at La Ferte-Saint-Aubin, near Orleans, 170, 171, 
200-201 

Tuby, Jean-Baptiste, 1 ,41 
Chariot of Apollo, 41 
Diana with a Stag and a Dog, 40, 41,184 
Flora, 41 

The River Sadne and Cupid, 41 
Thalia, 41 

Turenne, Marechal de, 41 
Turner, J. M. W.,111 


U 


Universal Exposition (Paris, 1878), 167 
Urban VIII, Pope, 30 
Utamaro, 167 


V 


Valenciennes, Pierre-Henri de, 125 
Landscape with Ruins, 124, 125,194 
Un petit paysage, vue d’ltalie, 125 
Rocca di Papa: Mountains Hidden by Clouds, 125 
Valentiner, William, 14 
Vasari, Giorgio, 13,101 
Vernet, Joseph, 125 
Veronese, Paolo (Paolo Caliari), 12 
Vertot d’Aubeuf, Rene Aubert de, 93 


Vezzo, Virginia da, 48 
Vien, Joseph-Marie, 115,127 

Saint Denis Preaching the Law to the Gauls, 123 
Venus Emerging from the Sea, 126, 127,195 
Vigee-Le Brun, Elisabeth, 105,107,144 
Vincent, Frangois-Andre, 129 

Democritus among theAbderitans, 128, 129,195 
Vinchon, Auguste-Jean-Baptiste, 163 
Violette, Patrick, 103 
Virch, Claus, 71 
Virgil 

Aeneid, 107,113 
Eclogues, 23 
Georgies, 23 

Voltaire (Frangois-Marie Arouet), 83-84,97 
Brutus, 161 

Voragine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend, 47,73,119 
Vos, Paul de, 75 

Vouet, Simon, 12,27,39,43-44,47-48 

The Adoration of the Holy Cross, 43,43-44 ,45 
Angels Carrying the Pillar of the Flagellation, 44 
Angels with the Instruments of the Passion, 44 
Judith with the Head of Holofernes, 48 
Saint Catherine of Alexandria, 48 
Salome, 48 

Time Defeated by Hope, Love, and Beauty, 48 

Two modelli fioranAltarpiece in Saint Peter's Basilica, 

Rome, 42, 43-44,184 

Virginia da Vezzo, the Artist's Wife, as the Magdalen, 46, 
47-48,184-85 
Vuillard, Edouard, 153,173 
First Fruits, 173 

Landscape atL'Etang-la-Ville, 172, 173,201 
Window Overlooking the Woods, 173 

w 


Wagner, Richard, Parsifal, 141 
Walker, John, 11 
Walker, William, 91 
Washington, George, 83,84 
Watteau, Jean-Antoine, 131 
The Italian Serenade, 131 
La lorgneuse, 131 

The Pe feet Accord, 130, 131,195-96 
The Surprise, 131 
Webb, Nathaniel, 91 

Wicar, Jean-Baptiste, The Marriage of the Virgin, 163 
Woeiriot, Pierre, 141 


X 


Xavier, Franz, Prince of Saxony, 117 

Z 


Ziem, Felix, 175 

Mermaids underwater, 174, 175,201 
Zola, Emile, 149 


217 


Index 



















LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 2019 


Co-Chairs of the Board 

Elaine P. Wynn 
Tony P. Ressler 

Co-Chairs Emeriti 

Andrew Brandon-Gordon 
Terry Semel 

Vice Chairs 

William H. Ahmanson 
Willow Bay 
Robert Kotick 

Trustees 

Wallis Annenberg 
Mark Attanasio 
Ambassador Nicole Avant 
Dr. Rebecka Belldegrun 
Allison Berg 
Nicolas Berggruen 
David C. Bohnett 
Suzanne Deal Booth 
Andrew Brandon-Gordon 
Troy Carter 
Eva Chow 


Ann Colgin 
Janet Crown 
Kelvin Davis 
Kelly Day 

Joshua S. Friedman 
Gabriela Garza 
Thelma Golden 
Tom Gores 
Caroline Grainge 
Victoria Jackson 
Suzanne Kayne 
Lyn Davis Lear 
Bryan Lourd 
Michael Lynton 
Richard Merkin M. D. 
Wendy Stark Morrissey 
Jane Nathanson 
Peter Norton 
Geoff Palmer 
Viveca Paulin-Ferrell 
Janet Dreisen Rappaport 
Carter Reum 
Steven F. Roth 
Carole Bayer Sager 
Ryan Seacrest 


LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 2019 


Hilda L. Solis, Supervisor, First District 
Mark Ridley-Thomas, Supervisor, Second 
District 

Sheila Kuehl, Supervisor, Third District 
Janice Hahn, Supervisor, Fourth District 
Kathryn Barger, Supervisor, Fifth District 


Soumaya Slim 
Florence Sloan 
Eric Smidt 
Michael G. Smooke 
Jonathan D. Sokoloff 
Steve Tisch 
Casey Wasserman 
Dasha Zhukova 
Ann Ziff 

Life Trustees 

Ambassador Frank E. Baxter 

Daniel N. Belin 

Donald L. Bren 

Eli Broad 

Robert A. Day 

Camilla Chandler Frost 

Julian Ganz, Jr. 

Robert F. Maguire III 
William A. Mingst 
Lynda Resnick 
Terry Semel 
Sandra W. Terner 
Walter L. Weisman 


218 


PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS 


Unless otherwise noted, all photographs are Photo 
© Museum Associates / LACMA 

P. 31, left: Photo courtesy of The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art 

P. 31, right: Photo courtesy of the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, DC 

P. 45, top: Photo © bpk Bildagentur / Kunst- 
bibliothek / Dietmar Katz / Art Resource, NY 

P. 49: Photo courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum 
of Art 

P. 45, bottom: Photo courtesy of the collection 

P. 85, left: Photo © RMN-Grand Palais / Art 
Resource, NY 

P. 85, right: Photograph © The State Hermitage 
Museum. Photo by Leonard Kheifets. 

P. 145: Photo courtesy of the Timken Museum of Art 

P. 172: © 2019 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York 


219